Loading...
04-19-16 Planning Comm Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 19 APRIL 2016 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE MADDY (May) ______ BEAN (Jun) ______ JOHNSON (Apr) ______ DAVIS (Mar) ______ RIEDEL (tbd) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 15 March 2016  1. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND VARIANCES FOR LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, AND SETBACKS (continued from 15 March 2016) Applicant: Peter Lehman Location: 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY REGULATION 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Tom Wartman Location: 26985 Edgewood Road 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, MARCH 15, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson, Maddy and Riedel; Planning Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Sundberg Absent: None Vice-Chair Davis introduced the newest member of the Planning Commission, Marc Riedel. Commissioner Riedel noted this is his first experience being involved with local government. He stated he lives along Ridge Road. He has lived there for three years. He was originally from Canada and then lived in California for 10 years. He has lived in Minnesota for 10 years. He is a professor of computer engineering at the University of Minnesota. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Director Nielsen stated that Items 3 and 4 on the agenda will not be discussed this evening. He asked the Planning Commission to open the Public Hearing for Item 3 and then continue it to the Commission’s April 19, 2016, meeting. Maddy moved, Bean seconded, approving the agenda for March 15, 2016, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  February 16, 2016 Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2016, as amended in Item 1, Page 2, Paragraph 6, Sentence 2, change “… material to the side …” to “… material to the site …”. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN OF A PUD FOR SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY Applicant: Oppidan Investment Company Location: 23075 State Highway 7, 6020 & 6050 Chaska Road Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She 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 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 2 of 20 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. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a Zoning Code text amendment, rezoning to a planned unit development (PUD), and Concept Stage and Development stage plan of a PUD for senior housing. Director Nielsen explained Oppidan Investment Company, located in the City of Excelsior, has arranged to purchase the properties located at 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road and 23075 State Highway 7. Oppidan proposes to develop them as a senior housing project consisting of independent living (28 units), assisted living (52 units) and memory care living (25 units). The three parcels of land contain approximately 3.77 acres. The Highway 7 parcel is occupied by the Control House office building and is zoned R-C, Residential Commercial. The two southerly parcels on Chaska Road are occupied by single-family homes, zoned R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: North/Northwest: State Highway 7 South/Southwest: Single-family and two-family residential; zoned R-2A East: Single-family residential; zoned R-1C; Single-Family Residential The property varies considerably with respect to topography, dropping approximately 25 feet from the southeast corner of the site to the northerly end near the ditch for Highway 7. The site has been significantly altered over the years and is characterized by rather low quality vegetation (as shown on the Tree Preservation Plan graphic). Many of the trees on the property are cottonwood or boxelder; they are not considered to be significant trees as defined in Shorewood’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. The maximum exposure is 34 trees. To accomplish its project, Oppidan has requested a rezoning of the three parcels to PUD. It has submitted Concept and Development Stage Plans for a PUD. It had previously requested additional zoning text amendments related to allowable density and parking requirements for senior housing. With regard to issues and analysis, Nielsen reviewed the following. 1. Land Use/Density – Oppidan’s application includes rezoning from R-2A and R-C to PUD (essentially using R-C standards). Senior housing is an allowable use (by conditional use permit – C.U.P.) in the R-C District; a PUD process is required. In December 2015 the applicant applied for and received a zoning text amendment changing the density allowance in the R-C District from 10 to 12 units per 40,000 square feet. It is now asking for the density to be increased to 15 units per 40,000 square feet (it would require another zoning text amendment). The applicant has indicated that the reason for the increase in density and the number of units is to overcome the cost of extensive soil correction that is necessary to redevelop the site as well as extraordinary costs in extending water to the south side of Highway 7. The applicant will be seeking approval for tax increment financing (TIF) to further offset development costs. The City has considered allowing density up to 15 units per 40,000 square feet in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. In addition to the increased number, the Code was revised to only count assisted living units as half units. It should also be noted that the application calculates the density based on units per acre; Shorewood’s Code is based on units per 40,000 square feet. The result is that the project comes in at 13.1 units per 40,000 square feet. If the project was reduced by five units, the text amendment would not be necessary. If adopted, the amendment would apply to other R-C zoned properties. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 3 of 20 2. Site Plan – Although the site plan is extremely tight, the plan complies with setback requirements for the building and parking, with one minor exception. The patio area on the northwesterly side of the building extends into the rear yard setback abutting Highway 7. As part of a PUD, that encroachment is considered acceptable. The maximum amount of allowable impervious surface in the R-C district is 66 percent of the total site area. With special drainage improvements that treat runoff, that amount can go to 75 percent with a C.U.P. The site plan indicates a total of 52 percent impervious surface. The applicant should be required to provide a detailed breakdown of hardcover, including the area designated as proof of parking. 3. Parking/Circulation –The required number of parking spaces, based on the recently amended ordinance, is 120 (including proof of parking – it would have to show where an additional one- half space per unit could be located on the site should parking become a problem in the future). The site plan shows 122 spaces. The City Engineer’s report indicates the Excelsior Fire Department (EFD) would require a paved access around the building which would have to be maintained year round. Staff is waiting for written documentation from the EFD specifying what it requires. 4. Landscaping – The original landscape plan for the project was considered extremely sparse, particularly for the size of the building especially across the front of the property. The applicant has indicated that significant landscaping in front of the building is not possible due to the location of power lines along Chaska Road. Whatever trees are planted have to respect the power lines in order to avoid a situation where the power company trims a lot of the growth. It is further compounded by the ditch proposed on the northwesterly side of Chaska Road. That limits the ability to put in a landscape berm. Staff has asked the applicant to do more with the landscaping. He highlighted the applicant’s original landscape plan. It shows deciduous trees on the front of the property. It would soften the building for people on the east side of Chaska Road. Unfortunately, it does not do much to screen parking or soften the lower level of site. The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan which is a drastic improvement when compared to the original plan. The applicant now proposes a coniferous hedge (a lot of it would be juniper) that would grow to grow to about 4 – 5 in width and height. That would help screen the row of parking that would face Chaska Road. A landscape berm of deciduous and coniferous trees is also being proposed that would serve to some extent as a sound barrier from Highway 7. The two large, sparse maple trees at the north end of the site would be replaced by the berm. A ponding area on the very north end is proposed. Some underground drainage facilities are proposed as well. The trees being proposed for along Chaska Road are swamp white oak. They can grow to have a 40 – 50 foot high canopy on them. They could ultimately cause issues with the power lines. Staff recommends the applicant consider another type of tree. The plan shows 2.5-inch caliper replacement trees. The Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy requires 3-inch caliper replacement trees. Staff intends to continue to work with the applicant’s landscape architect to refine the new plan as part of the final plans for the project. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 4 of 20 5. Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utilities – These items are addressed in the City Engineer’s report dated March 7, 2016. The most significant issue with respect to utilities is the extraordinary expense that would be incurred to get city water to the subject property. An advantage of doing that is it would provide city water to residents on the south side of Highway 7. The original plan was to get water from the Excelsior water system immediately north of the property. Excelsior originally indicated it would do that. It has reversed its position due to system constraints. Some property owners have expressed concern that they would be assessed for the watermain extension. Shorewood’s policy is not to assess for water except for the situation where a super majority of property owners in the area petition for the extension. Engineer Hornby highlighted some aspects of his Engineering report. The plan he reviewed had a driveway on the south side of the site that wrapped around the back side of the site. That is gone in the revised plan. The Shorewood watermain would be extended from Minnetonka Drive at Yellowstone Trail, parallel the border with Excelsior, cross Highway 7 in Shorewood and into the site along the north side likely between the north boundary and the stormwater pond, and then down to the south property line. Currently the intent is to put the watermain extension in the ditch of the west side of Chaska Road. There are a lot of utilities there so that has to be evaluated. There may be a need to increase the existing size of the sanitary sewer line. After the plan came in staff found Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’ (MCES) sanitary sewer line is in Chaska Road and follows along the south side of Highway 7. The applicant has been speaking with MCES representatives about that. Some sewer work may have to be done to the sewer line along Highway 7 to the site; a larger line may have to be put in. MCES has proposed a project to eliminate a lift station at Galpin Lake Road and Highway 7. MCES would come toward the project site with its gravity line and then cross over in Excelsior and go north. That project would greatly reduce the amount of sewer that would be necessary if MCES deems that sewer line would need to be increased in diameter. There is a Shorewood sewer line on the very south end of the site that empties into the MCES system on the southwest corner of the site. Director Nielsen resumed his comments. 6. Building Plans – Floor plans and elevations for the proposed building are shown on graphics included in the meeting packet. He displayed graphics showing how the building would look from various elevations. The proposed building complies with the height limitations for the R-C District – three stories/35 feet. The small exception to that is the northerly elevation on the end of the project where the underground parking entrance is. That is a little higher than 35 feet high. That is quite acceptable under a PUD. That area faces north and to Highway 7 and not toward residential properties. Nielsen noted the staff report states that staff was not ready to recommend approval of the Concept Stage and Development Stage plans. He stated staff no longer takes that position in part because of the improved landscape plan the applicant submitted. Staff recommends it continue to work with the applicant’s landscape architect on that as things move into the Final Plan Stage. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 5 of 20 He explained that this evening the applicant is asking for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Concept Stage plan and the Development Stage plan for the PUD. He noted the Final Plan Stage plans do not come back to the Commission unless the Commission asks for that to happen. There will ultimately be a Development Agreement which specifies conditions of approval for the various plans. There will presumably be a TIF Agreement provided the City decides to do that. Those Agreements would be part of the Final Plan Stage plans. The applicant’s goal is to try to break ground by June but that may be optimistic because of the challenges with extending city water. Nielsen noted that staff is now recommending approval of the Concept Stage and Development Stage plans subject to the items raised in the WSB & Associate’s engineering report dated March 7, 2016, being resolved as part of the final plan and staff continuing to work with the applicant’s landscape architect to refine the landscape plan. Shannon Rusk, with Oppidan, stated Oppidan is the developer and will be the owner of the proposed facility. It would be operated by Ebenezer. Ebenezer is owned by Fairview. Its project as proposed would have 105 units with 25 of them being for memory care. Ms. Rusk explained most of Oppidan’s projects are designed to have the memory care area be in a separate area. The memory care area is secured off and there would be an outdoor area that is also secured off. For this facility the memory care area is on the first floor. Also on the first floor are all of the amenities (i.e. the community room, the fitness area, spa, beauty salon, dining area and so forth). There would be some independent living and assisted living units on the north side of the first floor. There would be heated, underground parking and all deliveries would be made down there. The second and third floors would primarily be independent living and assisted living units. Oppidan has built an Ebenezer facility in the City of Woodbury and is currently in the process of building a facility (113 units) in the City of White Bear Lake. The project being proposed would be the third project for the two companies. Stone is incorporated on the siding. It has articulation of elevations to make it interesting from a materials and color perspective. Additional landscape would be added at the request of staff; it would block the view of the parking lot from residents living across the street from the facility and hopefully it would mitigate sound. Oppidan does a couple of market studies before it decides to propose a project. There is demand in the area for a facility that includes independent living, assisted living and memory care living. Oppidan selected Ebenezer as its partner and operator because it has 75 properties throughout Minnesota with a total of more than 5,600 units. Oppidan has confidence that Ebenezer knows what it is doing and has resources to tap into. Ms. Rusk offered to entertain questions. Commissioner Bean asked an Ebenezer representative to describe “a day in the life of” including what the anticipated number of delivery trucks would be and other traffic to and from the facility. Jill Kaiser, with Ebenezer, explained the larger deliveries a facility gets are food service. The proposed facility would likely receive food service deliveries three times a week. It makes all of its own food in its commercial kitchens. There would be some smaller office deliveries. Its leadership staff would be about five people. There would be approximately 35 full-time-equivalents (FTEs) for the entire operation which works seven days a week and 24 hours a day. A shift change does not involve very many people at the same time. Ebenezer hears concerns expressed about traffic when a project is being considered and developed but not after the facility becomes operational. Residents would move into the apartments and CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 6 of 20 there would be turnover. Once a facility the approximate size of what is proposed is stabilized there would be about 4 - 6 resident moves in a month. Staff tries to ensure that is done as quietly as possible. Another concern she hears expressed by residents in a community is about emergency vehicles coming to the neighborhood. Ebenezer has worked with the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) at its facility in the City of Deephaven. For the Deephaven facility there were approximately 20 responses to emergencies with a couple being false alarms last year. The calls were about a resident needing help. Commissioner Johnson asked if the emergency responder vehicle would be driven into the underground parking garage. Ms. Kaiser stated the response vehicle would likely be driven to the front door; that would be the fastest route possible. Commissioner Bean asked Ms. Rusk to comment on the regional capacity for senior housing with regional being from the Cities of Chanhassen to Deephaven and from the western edge of the City of Shorewood to Highway 494. How much capacity does that regional area need? Ms. Rusk stated Oppidan’s market study consultant took a snapshot of how many people in the area were 55 – 69 years old in 2015 and projected out to 2020 how many people up to age 75 there would be. Their incomes are taken into account. It interpolates how much demand there would be for independent, assisted and memory care living. The demand for Shorewood somewhat near the project area (which is a little different than further north in Shorewood) was 150 – 160 units. The demographics used are for residents living in the area. Ebenezer takes Oppidan’s study results and does its own study internally. Bean stated he heard that the Deephaven Woods facility would only be 10 percent competitive to the proposed project. He thought it would be 100 percent competitive. He would consider each facility equally if he wanted to move to such a facility. Ms. Rusk stated the 10 percent might be because Oppidan’s proposal is for the south side of Highway 7; a different market. Bean asked Ms. Rusk what, if anything, has changed because of the proposed redevelopment of the Hilltop property [the potential site of The Waters in Excelsior senior housing project]. Ms. Rusk stated Oppidan considered that site first, but there are challenges because the redevelopment site would cross city boundaries (Shorewood and Excelsior). Oppidan representatives met with Excelsior representatives first and was basically told Excelsior did not think it could happen. Director Nielsen explained the Excelsior City Manager and City Attorney and the Shorewood City Administrator and City Attorney are meeting on March 16 to discuss the proposed The Waters in Excelsior project. Part of the site of the proposed project site is located in Shorewood – the Hilltop property and the garages for the apartments. The rest of the site to the north of that is in Excelsior. The developer spoke to the City several months ago about the project. There are three options Shorewood would consider. Excelsior could annex the Shorewood portion of the land and pay Shorewood the resulting taxes from the development forever. Shorewood could annex the Excelsior portion and pay Excelsior the taxes forever. The Cities could do a joint project over city boundaries. Excelsior wanted a cap on either the dollar amount of the taxes or the time that it would occur. That was not acceptable to Shorewood. Excelsior has since become more receptive to annexing the Shorewood portion of the land and paying Shorewood for its proportional share of taxes earned from the project over time. The project would be a TIF project. Council and staff would like to know if there is a market for both senior housing developments. In reality, it is up to the owners or operators of the facilities to get their units occupied. It costs more monthly to stay at BeeHive Homes of Excelsior. Someone noted that it only provides memory care living. The Waters facility would charge a higher rent than Oppidan. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 7 of 20 Ms. Rusk stated Oppidan intends to move forward with its project even if The Waters project moves forward and noted Oppidan would like to be first. It has a different pricing model. Oppidan thinks there is a market for both facilities. She noted that even though Oppidan hopes to break ground in June 2016 the facility would not be ready for residents to move in until nearly fall of 2017. Commissioner Bean stated the Oppidan project would have a significant impact on that residential neighborhood. He asked if there is any information about the occupancy rate of facilities within his definition of region. Director Nielsen stated there is just the market study. Bean stated the market study does not show the occupancy rates for the facilities in the region or if there are waiting lists. Ms. Rusk stated vacancy rates are considered in the market study. Ms. Kaiser stated Ebenezer manages the Deephaven Woods facility. It opened not quite two years ago. It has seven available units out of 78 units in total. Ebenezer has a two year plan to fill all units. The rest of the other Ebenezer properties are 95 – 98 percent occupied. She then stated staff in Ebenezer’s memory care business refers people to other facilities if they do not have openings. Vice-Chair Davis asked what the cost would be to live in one of the units of the proposed project. Ms. Kaiser stated the cost would in part be based on the size of the unit. A one bedroom, independent living unit in Deephaven Woods would be $1,800 a month. The assisted living package would increase the monthly cost by $1,750. Additional services would be paid for on an a la cart basis. Davis asked what the average age is of residents. Ms. Kaiser stated for assistant living it is 86 – 88 years old. Commissioner Bean explained that when the Planning Commission discussed Oppidan’s requested Zoning Code text amendments during its November 17, 2015, meeting there was mention as to whether or not a sidewalk could be constructed along Chaska Road in front of the project site if the project moved forward. Ms. Rusk stated Oppidan would look into that. Bean stated if the sewer line had to be reworked he asked if that would be on the project site or along Chaska Road. If it was along Chaska Road he asked what the disruption would be. Engineer Hornby stated MCES would be the permitting agency for that. Hornby then stated it would likely be down the center of Chaska Road and therefore Chaska Road would be closed at that end. Commissioner Riedel stated on the original landscape plan one of the tree species listed was accolade elm. That is not on the City’s list of approved trees in the Deciduous Tree Plan. Director Nielsen clarified the list is not exhaustive and the applicant can add to that list. Riedel then stated the plans indicate that 60 significant trees would be removed. That number does not include the boxelder and cottonwood trees; there are probably several dozen of them. The site will go from being heavily covered with trees to minimal coverage. Planning carefully for the buffer zone would be really important. Ms. Rusk stated she heard that at the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Rusk stated Oppidan understands that good landscaping would be very important for the City, residents in the neighborhood and residents living at the facility. She noted that Oppidan absolutely does not have a fear that people will not come to live at the facility. The company has done its homework. She explained the independent living units lease right away. People age into the assisted living units. People do not grow into memory care. Someone usually calls with an immediate need for memory care. To have that amenity in the community is very important. Once memory care fills it never empties. Commissioner Johnson asked what Oppidan’s approach would be to dealing with senior living facilities 50 years from now after the baby boomer population is gone. Ms. Rusk stated it would become a nursing home or the building could be demolished in 50 years. Johnson stated the zoning would likely last longer than the building. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 8 of 20 Ms. Rusk stated there are 20-year-old assisted living facilities around. The newer ones may pass the test of time. She then stated there is a need that has to be filled. Vice-Chair Davis stated she was at an Ebenezer presentation at Cargill 20 years ago about life-cycle housing which was very new at that time. Davis stated she likes the site for what is being proposed. It is in a very nice residential area. The houses in that area will be there 50 years from now. Ms. Rusk stated Oppidan likes to be in a residential area because seniors can look out windows and see they are in a residential area. She then stated Ebenezer is very excited about the proposed project. Commissioner Maddy stated that based on his experience tenants vacate investor owned facilities much more frequently than they do those they own. He asked why Ebenezer is not financing the project. Ms. Kaiser explained Fairview has a certain amount of asset allocation and Ebenezer gets a portion of that on a very limited basis. Ebenezer is not getting the opportunity to finance its own products at the rate it would like them to be constructed. Approximately 10 years ago Ebenezer expanded its business model to go into third party management because it had the expertise to do that and because it would have partners who could build projects faster than could be done within Fairview. A big part of that process is to make sure Ebenezer/Fairview really vets its potential partners. Ebenezer/Fairview is not interested in partnering with an owner that wants to build a facility and then flip it. Ebenezer/Fairview puts a lot of investment, both staff and resources, into developing a facility. She commented there are organizations talking to Ebenezer about managing senior housing that Ebenezer does not want to work with. Maddy asked how long Ebenezer’s initial lease is for. Ms. Kaiser noted Ebenezer has a management contract and it is for five years with automatic extensions. Ms. Kaiser explained that she has worked for Ebenezer for 10 years and there has only been one project that sold and that owner is on a short list for Ebenezer for doing that and some other things. It is very important to Ebenezer’s leadership group not to th have short term partnerships. She noted it will be Ebenezer’s 100 anniversary next year. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:11 P.M. Mike Marr, 6015 Chaska Road, stated he lives across from the proposed project site. He has lived there for 35 years. He expressed concern about the volume and speed of traffic on Chaska Road. He explained when the Galpin Lake Road access at Highway 7 was eliminated the traffic moved over to Chaska Road. Since that closure the population in the City of Chanhassen has increased significantly and that in turn resulted in increasing traffic even more. The speed limit on Chaska Road is 30 miles per hour (mph) but most drivers exceed that speed limit. The last two evenings he sat and observed traffic from 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Approximately 180 cars traveled on Chaska Road during that one hour period. That is a fair amount of traffic for the size of that roadway. The fastest vehicle traveling that roadway early in the evening he saw was a Carver Country Sheriff’s vehicle. If there is a way of to change the access off of Highway 7 he thought that would make more sense. He noted that he has been run into at the end of his driveway twice. One of the times he was hit so hard he was thrown 150 feet into a vacant lot. He encouraged people to find a way to slow traffic down. If the majority of property owners want city water, he asked if that would become mandatory. There are about 10 properties in the area. He asked what constitutes a majority. Director Nielsen responded the super majority would be seven. Mr. Marr stated that could possibly be an issue for him. Commissioner Bean clarified the properties would be assessed for the watermain extension but property owners would not have to connect to city water. Nielsen noted property owners are not forced to connect to city water. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 9 of 20 Mr. Marr noted there has not been much discussion about the proposed lighting plan. He stated the area is currently very dark. The Control House has one small (probably 100 watt) light on the side of its building; at night he thought that light was very bright. If the project moves forward there would be a parking lot full of lights. Even though they would be dimed it would still be a light source all night long. He expressed concern for future residents of the facility. He explained Chaska Road is not very wide. There are no markings on it. There are no sidewalks in the area. There is no place to pull off of the roadway. It could be dangerous for a pedestrian walking on Chaska Road. He questioned if property owners would want to be assessed for putting in a sidewalk. Mr. Marr stated he liked the idea of putting in a berm. He requested pine trees (or some other coniferous tree) be planted because they would serve as a sound barrier and block views throughout the year. He stated Chaska Road is a 4-ton roadway when weight restrictions are in effect two months out of a year. He asked if that is sufficient for the delivery trucks. Director Nielsen stated the delivery trucks may have to be downsized during those times. It was noted that Ebenezer has done that in the past. He then stated he thought he heard there would be about 10 workers on the site at any one time. He asked if that is correct. Ms. Rusk stated that would depend on the time of day. Mr. Marr stated that means there are vehicles going to and coming from the proposed facility at various times of the day and night. He asked that construction vehicles be prohibited from parking on the roadway during construction. It is tight for two cars to pass on that roadway. Commissioner Maddy stated he has observed vehicles exiting off Highway 7 onto Chaska Road traveling at high speeds. He asked Mr. Marr where he thought those drivers were going. Mr. Marr stated most of the time the drivers turn left on to Mayflower Road and head over to Galpin Lake Road and drive into Chanhassen. A few drivers use it as a cutoff to Highway 41. He thought that traffic has lessened because of the long light at Highway 41. Mr. Marr noted that he would like the Highway 7 access to Chaska Road closed and to make Chaska Road a one-way road out to Highway 7. Commissioner Maddy concurred with that. Vice-Chair Davis stated she hopes the delivery trucks would travel to the facility from Highway 41. Mr. Marr stated that while observing traffic the last two evenings the drivers coming from Highway 41 to Highway 7 are the worst speeding offenders. Vice-Chair Davis stated speeding in general is a big issue in Shorewood. Mr. Marr stated the speed limit on Highway 7 is 50 mph and drivers don’t have to slow down to access Chaska Road. He explained that he lives 300 feet down Chaska Road on the left. When he makes a turn onto his driveway drivers pass him. That happens frequently. Recently when he was walking across the roadway to get his newspaper there was a driver who came off Highway 7 and was slowing down like he should and another driver passed the first vehicle and almost hit him. He questioned why that access was designed that way. He stated if the sewer line has to be improved, he asked if that intersection could be realigned. He stated some drivers will leave Excelsior on Water Street, go backwards on Highway 7 and come through the intersection. Vice-Chair Davis stated she has observed that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 10 of 20 Mr. Marr thanked the Planning Commission for its time. Tyler Stevens, the owner of BeeHive Homes, noted his facility is located at roughly the intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 41. He stated he is a proponent of the proposed project. He does not think the facility would be a direct competitor of his. He expressed concern that Excelsior and Shorewood representatives have been meeting to discuss a proposal for building yet another senior housing facility, The Waters of Excelsior, which would be located in both Cities. He stated The Waters market study results indicate one new senior housing facility would be good but not two. Oppidan’s market study from a different firm indicates the same thing. He encouraged both Cities not to ignore that. He understands municipal government should not get involved in private business. But, the Planning Commission is responsible for watching out for Shorewood. Director Nielsen clarified there are discussions going on between the Cities and there needs to be a lot more discussion. Mr. Stevens stated he understands The Waters may not happen. He reiterated he thought the Oppidan proposal would be great but not if a person could throw a baseball from the Oppidan proposed facility to the proposed The Waters facility. Commissioner Johnson stated the Oppidan market study indicated there is a need for 156 units and Oppidan’s proposal is for 105 units. He asked how many units there would be in The Waters facility. Mr. Stevens responded he thought 110 units; it would be a four story structure. Mr. Stevens noted he does not think the market studies take into account the expansion of BeeHive Homes or Chaska Senior Living (about 220 units). He stated he thought Ebenezer will operate a to-be-built facility in Chanhassen. Commissioner Bean stated that according to the Viewpoint Consulting Group study of August 2015 the senior housing facility in Chanhassen will have 134 units. The Chaska Heights project which broke ground last August will have 136 units. The addition to BeeHive Homes is for 117 units. Mr. Stevens reiterated there is a need for more senior housing units. He questions the need for two facilities in Shorewood/Excelsior. He stated it is very, very rare to have two facilities built at the same time across the street from each other with competing markets. The Waters would be close to the same split of unit types as Oppidan’s. He expressed concern about building too much senior housing in this area. There is also the Sunrise of Minnetonka senior living facility east on Highway 7. Joshua Trent, 6045 Chaska Road, stated his property is right across the street from the proposed development. He and his wife are raising their two young boys in a very residential neighborhood. He stated he shared the comments and concerns Mr. Marr articulated so well. He noted his greatest concern is constructing the facility in a very residential area. He stated he thought the building would look beautiful. From his perspective it does not fit in the very residential area in part because of the traffic challenges already existing in that area. It would be borderline irresponsible and dangerous to add that much more traffic. It would cause problems and safety issues that need to be addressed before moving forward with the proposed project. He thought getting rid of the Highway 7 crossover would help the situation. He asked if any thought has been given to having the entrance to the project site be off of Highway 7. Commissioner Bean stated an entry from Highway 7 was briefly discussed last November. He does not think the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) would allow that. He thought there would be a greater possibility to close the access at Chaska Road then creating another access off of Highway 7. Mr. Trent stated he thought the area should be residential. Commissioner Bean clarified that anything that happens to Highway 7 is not within the purview of Shorewood. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 11 of 20 Director Nielsen stated MnDOT’s policy is if there is access from another street it would not allow another direct access to Highway 7. Commissioner Bean stated that he thought part of the problem is the posted speed on Galpin Lake Road goes to 45 mph at the Carver County border. Maybe the City could ask Chanhassen to reduce that speed and that could possibly help the situation. Engineer Hornby explained that once the border is crossed the roadway becomes County Road 117. That County Road is slated for a turn back to the city some time. He thought speed enforcement would better help mitigate the speeding situation. Mr. Trent stated the City is allowing drivers to travel Chaska Road to Mayflower Road at high speeds. Increasing the volume of traffic because of the proposed project would only exacerbate the problem and make it more dangerous. It is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt. Mr. Trent thanked the Commission. Cindy Marr, 6015 Chaska Road, noted she was married to Mike Marr who spoke earlier. She suggested the City consider putting up stop signs at some point along the proposed facility to break up some of the driving patterns and maybe a stop sign at the three-way at Mayflower Road. Residents requested that about 25 years ago. She stated having a sheriff there does not solve the problem. She noted drivers speed through that area 24/7. She stated it appears that there would be three entrances to the site with the first being across from her driveway. That results in there being three opportunities for people to get “smuked” along the roadway because of excess speeding independent of which way they are coming. She asked if there would be an advantage to eliminating the one that goes to the garage. She stated that over the years drivers have used their driveway so much to turn around that the grass that was next to her driveway has been destroyed. She then stated that she has trained herself and her children to slow way down when accessing Chaska Road from Highway 7 and force the drivers behind them to slow down. She explained that when people go to cross Highway 7 and use the access to Chaska Road they put their left blinker on. Because she will leave her blinker on to signal that she is going to turn onto her driveway drivers behind her assume she just did not turn her blinker off. She stated she thought putting a stop sign in the middle of Chaska Road and at the intersection with Mayflower Road “might” help mitigate the speeding situation and make it safer for residents in that area. A resident along Chaska Road (name and address were inaudible) stated he has been passed many times in his car by drivers coming off Highway 7. The proposed facility will generate an increase in traffic. As smart cars become more realistic older people might drive more and for a longer period of time. He explained that he did a mathematical calculation to determine how fast drivers were going on Chaska Road. He determined the speeds drivers were traveling at while sitting at the end of his driveway. What he calculated was drivers were traveling at a speed of 30 mph at best and up to about 70 mph. That happens all of the time. He stated there needs to be a sidewalk along Chaska Road even without the project. He noted that he had been told by someone some time ago that stop signs would not be placed along Chaska Road. He clarified his greatest concern is about traffic. He stated to cross the street to get mail is a 10-look process. He commented he thought the traffic has gotten worse speed wise coming off Highway 7 when one of the worst intersections on Highway 7 which crossed into Excelsior was eliminated. At least then a driver had to stop. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:45 P.M. Commissioner Maddy stated once again the Commission has heard about a development proposal and learned about a serious traffic problem that is not related to the proposed development. He asked who manages Chaska Road. Engineer Hornby noted Chaska Road is a Shorewood roadway and at Highway 41 it crosses the border into Chanhassen. Maddy asked if it is possible to make changes (e.g., stop signs) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 12 of 20 along Chaska Road. Hornby stated stop signs would likely not meet warrants based on his experience. He could have a traffic engineer look into that. Engineer Hornby stated the City could ask MnDOT to work with the City to determine what the impact would be if the crossover on Highway 7 to Chaska Road was closed temporarily as an experiment. Doing that might force traffic on to Highway 41 and drivers might take Lake Lucy Road over to County Road 117. That is probably where high volume traffic should go. Council would have to authorize staff to do that. Director Nielsen stated Council established a Traffic Committee to study traffic around the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) development. The Committee’s most significant recommendation will likely be for more speed enforcement. Council has discussed having that Committee or a new group that would discuss traffic issues throughout Shorewood. He then stated the City could have the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) deploy the speed buggy which could display the speed drivers are traveling on Chaska Road. The buggy would capture the volume of vehicles traveling on the roadway. The City could maybe do an informal study and capture speed, time and number of vehicles. If MnDOT were th asked to conduct a formal speed study and found the 85 percentile for the speed being driven was higher than 30 mph it could possibly increase the speed limit. Engineer Hornby explained MnDOT would also consider the width of the roadway and layout. Vice-Chair Davis asked if Chaska Road was constructed to the City’s roadway standards. Engineer Hornby stated it is a rural roadway; it is somewhat like Country Club Road or Yellowstone Trail. Hornby stated he would guess Chaska Road is 22 feet wide. Commissioner Maddy asked if the applicant is required to have three entrances onto the project site. The traffic engineers he deals with recommend the fewer the better. Director Nielsen stated the City is not requiring three and noted the initial plan had four. The applicant is allowed one per 120 feet. Vice-Chair Davis stated it looks like two entrances are wider than the third. Nielsen stated he thought the wider ones would be 24 feet wide. Davis asked what the width of the narrower entrance at the south end is. Someone with Oppidan stated at the street it is 24 feet wide then the width varies. Commissioner Maddy stated a big concern of his, especially with those types of properties, is the facility looks like a big apartment building. It does not operate like one. He has worked with a lot of them and they are good neighbors. The residents would not generate the same amount of traffic as residents in an apartment would. But, the response time of older residents to drive off of a site is longer. He then stated the two instances when he went out to look at the area he observed the speeds being driven were excessive. He can believe someone drove the area at 70 mph. He noted he would be nervous allowing a use like the one being proposed on a roadway like Chaska Road where people drive recklessly after coming off a highway. He would like more investigation into what traffic calming options there are before recommending approval of the project. Vice-Chair Davis concurred with that statement. Vice-Chair Davis stated she thought a senior housing facility would be a good use of the property. But, valid concerns mainly about traffic have been expressed. She commented that the only time she had taken that route was to cut through. Director Nielsen asked the residents in attendance if they thought speeding is more of an issue for southbound traffic or traffic going northbound to get to Highway 7. Mr. Marr responded both ways and stated when he observed traffic from 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M, on two evenings for the drivers going Highway 7 toward Highway 41 one in 10 drivers was really speeding; they were travelling well over 40 mph. For the drivers coming from Highway 41 to Highway 7, 9 out of 10 drivers were traveling at speeds of well over 40 mph. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 13 of 20 Vice-Chair Davis stated the only time she has taken Chaska Road she was going from Highway 7 to Galpin Lake Road. The majority of drivers were not going the same direction she was going because she was trying to go to Chanhassen. She then stated drivers cut through to avoid the intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 41. Vice-Chair Davis re-opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:55 P.M. Mr. Stevens stated there is a school right across the roadway from BeeHive Homes. MnDOT wanted to cap the entrance at BeeHive. BeeHive ended up doing an access exchange with MnDOT. An access was capped and relocated. Maybe there could be an access exchange for this proposed project. The access to BeeHive is going to be moved about 50 feet to line up with the access to the school. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:56 P.M. Commissioner Bean asked someone with Oppidan to describe the proposed lighting plan. Director Nielsen noted the applicant submitted a graphic for the lighting plan but it was not included in the meeting packet. Vicki Vandell, with Loucks, explained there would be a mixture of shoebox type lights with full cutoff. The fixtures along the service drive will be 20 feet tall. The main parking is all luminaires and provides an average of 2.2 foot candles. Along the property line it would be 0.4 foot candles or less. On the south and west side of the building there is very little lighting; just the building lighting. The retaining wall on those two sides is up higher; the building will be down a little. Only the sidewalk will be lit. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the lights turn off at night. Someone in the audience stated some lights are on all night. Ms. Vandell stated some of them could be turned off or dimmed. The emergency exit has to be lit. Commissioner Bean stated at the convenience road at Old Market Road there was a requirement to turn off the outside lights at a certain time. Director Nielsen stated the Zoning Ordinance has standards for anything open 24 hours a day. He stated for this facility the main entry can be lit but there has to be reduced lighting otherwise. Bean asked if the applicant is concerned from a security perspective about reducing lighting at some point during the evening. It was noted the main entrance has to be lit. It was noted if staff could park near the main entrance then the parking lot lighting could be dimmed or turned off. It was also noted the applicant appreciates the concerns about too much lighting during evening hours. Commissioner Maddy stated he has done a lot of work with the types of lighting fixtures being proposed. He stated the proposed lighting plan would not be very bright. He asked if the applicant had a preference for color temperature. It is currently specified as 4000k (kelvin). A lot of people think that is pretty bright if it is left on all night long. He suggested going with 3000k. Vice-Chair Davis stated she would like to see more options for Chaska Road. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 14 of 20 Commissioner Bean stated if Chaska Road was closed off at Highway 7 he questions if that will push traffic to Mayflower Road to Galpin Lake Road as a way to get to Highway 7. He then stated traffic is his greatest concern. Chaska Road is not set up to handle current traffic let alone more traffic. Someone asked if Chaska Road could become a dead end roadway. Commissioner Bean stated the fire department is not overly fond of cul-de-sacs. Director Nielsen stated emergency access is an issue. Director Nielsen stated that the traffic issue needs a traffic study. It does not get decided with a project. A study will take more time. He explained the City has to comply with the 60-day rule per State Statute. The City has to make a decision about the application within 60 days of receiving a complete application. That can be extended another 60 days for a justifiable reason provided the applicant is notified before the original 60 days is up. A study would take longer than the time remaining to make a decision about the application. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the Highway 7 crossover to Chaska Road could be closed off temporarily. Director Nielsen stated that may be possible as an experiment. Engineer Hornby stated while working on Galpin Lake Road sidewalk project plans he observed that roadway has a heavier morning traffic volume peak and an afternoon/evening peak that picks up on Chaska Road. There is traffic volume northbound on Chaska Road in the morning as well. He then stated drivers like to be close to the bumper of a vehicle being driven at the posted speed limit. He went on to state a recommendation that could come out of a traffic study is to expand a roadway to handle traffic volume and speed. Director Nielsen stated he has been amazed that drivers will get off of Highway 41 at Chaska Road and take that to Highway 7. He then stated enforcement is the most effective way to get drivers to reduce their speed. The City can ask the SLMPD to provide more speed enforcement on Chaska Road. Ms. Rusk stated if a person looks at the proposal from an aerial view senior housing looks like the right use. But, to the residents in the area it does not look right. A resident clarified he is not opposed to what is proposed. It is about the increase in traffic and lighting in the area. Vice-Chair Davis asked what kind of commitment can be obtained to assess the traffic situation separate from the proposed project. Director Nielsen suggested making that part of the Commission’s recommendation to Council. In response to a comment from Commissioner Maddy, Engineer Hornby explained the items listed in his Engineering Report can all be addressed as part of the final design. The Final Plan Stage plans would not be approved until they have been resolved. Commissioner Maddy stated he does not remember considering approval of Concept Stage and Development Stage plans at the same time. Director Nielsen clarified that is an option in the Zoning Code. Nielsen stated the developer takes a risk by doing that. In response to another comment from Maddy, Nielsen reiterated staff will continue to work with the applicant on refining the landscape plan. Director Nielsen noted senior housing is very high on his list and that he is a big supporter of the PUD process. He stated the PUD process has generally been somewhat consistent with what the zoning already was. He thought what is being proposed would be a dramatic change to the residents in that area. It would not have a residential feel. The facility would look like a large commercial building. He expressed CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 15 of 20 concern that the facility could not be screened enough to mitigate that impact. He stated he does not think traffic generated because of the proposed project is the problem. He frequently travels by the Sunrise senior living facility and he does not see a lot of vehicles coming or going; but, it does not have a cut- through route near it. The problem is the existing traffic on Chaska Road. He agrees any recommendation to Council should include the need for studying traffic on Chaska Road. He expressed concern that what is being proposed is too much for that space. Commissioner Riedel stated the existing residential area has very dense tree cover. Sixty mature trees will be removed. When the boxelder trees and cottonwood trees are included about 100 trees will be removed. Replacement trees can be planted but it will take a generation for them to become big, mature trees. There will only be an opportunity for tree landscaping around the periphery of the developed site. Maddy moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of rezoning the properties located at 23075 State Highway 7 and 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road to planned unit development (PUD) and the Concept Stage and Development Stage plans for a senior assisted living facility PUD for Oppidan Investment Company contingent on the applicant working with the City to resolve any outstanding issues identified in the staff report (dated March 7, 2016), the engineering report (dated March 7, 2016) and issues raised during this Public Hearing; and, also recommending the City make a concerted effort to find a solution to mitigate the cut-through traffic problem that currently exists on Chaska Road. Vice-Chair Davis noted that she was uneasy about this. The other Commissioners concurred. Vice-Chair Davis clarified she is uneasy for the residents in the area; about putting the facility in their front yards. Commissioner Johnson stated he is uneasy about taking part of a residential area and zoning it something else. No one knows what the need will be 50 years from now yet the property has been rezoned. Director Nielsen explained if the project fails to move forward the PUD would revert back to the existing zoning. Commissioner Johnson noted that eases some of his concerns. Commissioner Bean stated the Planning Commission is trying to make something work that all Commissioners feel a little uncomfortable about. He asked if the City would be better served by trying to find a better location for the proposed senior housing. That won’t make Oppidan happy. Yet, knowing that there will be an additional 200 plus senior housing units coming online in a short time period that would all serve the Shorewood and South Lake area relatively effectively he thought there is time to find a better location for such a facility. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the worst thing that could go in on the corner of this area now is an office building. Director Nielsen stated an office building could be built on the R-C portion. Davis asked how large that portion is. Nielsen stated he thought a little over one-half acre and maybe a little more than that. Nielsen noted beyond that it is single-family and two-family zoning. Director Nielsen clarified the R-C District is intended to be a transitional district between lower intensity uses like single-family residential and either commercial or in this instance highways. Commissioner Riedel asked if a fast-food restaurant go in there. Director Nielsen responded no under the current zoning. Nielsen stated the most intense use would be an office building. Motion passed 3/2 with Bean and Davis dissenting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 16 of 20 Director Nielsen stated this would go before Council on March 28, 2016. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 9:26 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Bradley Hauser Location: 5640 Covington Road Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 9:26 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Bradley Hauser, 5640 Covington Road. Vice-Chair Davis recessed the meeting at 9:27 P.M. Vice-Chair Davis reconvened the meeting at 9:31 P.M. Director Nielsen explained Bradley Hauser is building a new home at 5640 Covington Road. The home would have an attached garage. The floor area of the attached garage for the home, when combined with an old pump house structure near the lake, exceeds the 1200 square feet in floor area allowable for accessory space. That requires a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code. The subject property contains 82,795 square feet of area. It is zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland. The proposed home would have 3422 square feet of floor area above grade on the main level. He displayed a copy of the site plan. Covington Road is on the east side of the property and Christmas Lake is on the west side. The property drops significantly between the roadway and the Lake. The previous home was located on a flat spot on the lot. The new home would be well back of the required setbacks. The shoreline setback is 75 feet. The garage would be end-loading and located on the south side of the building. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen 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. 1. The total area of accessory space (1359 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the new home (3422 square feet – main level). 2. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot size for the R- 1A/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). 3. The old pump house is nonconforming with respect to its setback from the lake. The location of the building is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the building is tucked into the hillside. The applicants have cited the provisions of Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4)(e) as justification for retaining the old pump house. In 2007, the City adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan setting forth its intention to recognize and preserve special structures in Shorewood. This was followed by an amendment to the zoning regulations, providing for the preservation of certain nonconforming structures that have historical, architectural, or cultural significance. Mr. Hauser believes the pump house is consistent with the criteria for keeping such structures. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 17 of 20 a. The applicant has submitted an aerial photo dating back to 1956 which shows the pump house. b. While the structure has not been inspected by the Building Official as of this writing, preliminary observation of the building in question suggests it is in good condition. Some cosmetic work on the building will be necessary. It is recommended that, as a condition of approval, the building be maintained in some sort of earth tone color. c. Mr. Hauser’s application states: “The pump house is visible in historic pictures. Likely used to draw water from the lake to supply adjacent homes. Adds a historical character to the property. Removing the building could be more disruptive through erosion or other as the pump house is built into the sloping hill”. 4. The issue of architectural compatibility between the accessory and principal structures is somewhat of a moot point. The attached garage is obviously an integral part of the home. The pump house is discreetly tucked into the hillside and separated from the house by distance, grade and vegetation. Nielsen stated the applicant’s plans are consistent with the Code requirements for accessory space and historic structures. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. Bradley Hauser, 5640 Covington Road, noted he and his wife have four children ages 4 - 17. He stated with the pump house they are trying to maintain an old look and feel around Christmas Lake. He does not know what the impact of removing the pump house would be on the physical area around it. The structure is in a bluff. The garage would be used as a basketball court by his children. Commissioner Riedel stated there is a hose running to Christmas Lake from the pump house. He asked if that is being used to pump water for irrigation. Mr. Hauser stated they purchased the property in March. The previous owner used the pump house to irrigate the yard. He is not sure how functional things are in the pump house. Riedel noted that he had lived on a property which fronted Lake Virginia and he needed a permit to draw water from that Lake. That property was located in a different watershed district. Mr. Hauser asked if he needs a permit to draw water out of Christmas Lake for irrigation. Director Nielsen stated he was not sure. His pump house may be grandfathered in. Commissioner Bean clarified that is not relevant to this discussion. Bean asked if there is a problem with the hose being above ground. Nielsen stated he does not think so. Mr. Hauser stated his preference would be to have the hose below ground. Commissioner Johnson stated if the Hausers did not want to use the pump house for irrigation purposes he asked if they would still want to keep the pump house. Mr. Hauser responded he would. Vice-Chair Davis commented she liked the pump house. Commissioner Riedel stated if the pump house were to be removed the applicant would have to assess if the integrity of the bluff would remain intact. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:44 P.M. Karen Vance noted she owns the property immediately next to the Hausers’ property. She stated did not know there was a pump house on the Hausers’ property. She noted she does not object to leaving the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 18 of 20 pump house on the property. She stated she is looking forward to having a young family in the neighborhood. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:45 P.M. Commissioner Johnson stated he thought this request was very straight forward. Johnson moved, Bean seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Bradley Hauser, 5640 Covington Road. Motion passed 5/0. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 9:46 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONING PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND VARIANCES FOR LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH AND SETBACKS Applicant: Peter Lehman Location: 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 9:46 P.M. She stated this Public Hearing is for rezoning of a preliminary plat and variances for lot area, lot width and setbacks for Peter Lehman, 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road. Maddy moved, Davis seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for rezoning of a preliminary plat and variances for lot area, lot width and setbacks for Peter Lehman, 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road to the April 19, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Vice-Chair Davis continued the Public Hearing at 9:47 P.M. 4. MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT – DISCUSS REDUCED SETBACK FOR AGE-TARGETED UNITS This item was postponed. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Bean stated from his perspective there appears to have been a series of scope changes with Mattamy Homes’ Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) project. Director Nielsen explained that during the Planning Commission’s February 16, 2016, meeting the Commission considered a request from Mattamy for approval of its revised Development Stage plans for the planned unit development (PUD) and preliminary plat for its MCC development. Commissioner Johnson stated the revised plans reflected moving the age-targeted units originally planned for the northeast corner down to the Niblick Alcove cul-de-sac and replacing the units with ten traditional units. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 19 of 20 Vice-Chair Davis stated the builders Mattamy was speaking with about constructing the age-targeted units wanted them to be either walkout or lookout lower levels. That could not be accomplished on the northeast corner. Director Nielsen reiterated Vice-Chair Davis’s comment. He stated the most disappointing thing about the age-targeted units is the cost to purchase them continues to increase. The base price for them was originally going to be about $450,000. It is now up to about $600,000. That is the base price of the traditional units. The developer told Council the age-targeted units were really more about a different life style. The grass mowing and snowplowing for them would be done by a MCC homeowners association. Mattamy had been talking to Wooddale Builders about constructing the age-targeted units on the east side of the site. Wooddale would have 2.5 – 3 stall garages on those units; Mattamy would have had 2 stall garages. Wooddale would also finish the lower level of the units. Vice-Chair Davis stated the proposed garages would be side entry and have a larger footprint. Commissioner Bean stated he assumes that is what resulted in the request for reduced setbacks. Director Nielsen stated the request was to reduce the front-yard setback to 15 feet. The City has never allowed less than 20 feet so that there could be room for a car on the driveway. Director Nielsen stated Rick Packer, representing Mattamy, has recently indicated to him that the idea of 15-foot front yard setbacks was being abandoned. The developer is going to request 20-foot setbacks. He then stated he thought Mattamy may consider going back to its own product. In response to a question from Commissioner Bean, Director Nielsen explained Mattamy wanted to use another builder for some of the units to spread the risk out. It also wanted to generate more development activity in addition to what it was doing. Mattamy may go back to using Charles Cudd Company to develop the eastern age-targeted units. Commissioner Johnson commented that would increase the base cost to $700,000. Nielsen noted Cudd would have had a base price of $500,000. Vice-Chair Davis stated at the end of the Planning Commission’s discussion about the project during its February 16 meeting Mr. Packer stated the base price for its traditional units would likely be $700,000. She then stated that Mr. Packer had stated the developer for the $1 million plus units pulled out because that builder did not think he could sell them. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) for the MCC project had suggested that there be some diversity in housing style and price. Mattamy’s response to that was the age-targeted units that were smaller, single level living units intended for an older age person; that was not a requirement. Commissioner Maddy stated the City created the problem by asking for the variety of housing styles and units (i.e., the age-targeted units). Vice-Chair Davis stated it would be fine with her if Mattamy went back to its own product for the age- targeted units. Director Nielsen noted that during its March 28, 2016, meeting Council will consider a request from Mattamy for an early development permit that would allow it to start initial grading. Commissioner Bean stated once the final plat is approved he asked if Mattamy had to stop revising things. Director Nielsen stated that would be true for the first phase once the final plat is approved. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2016 Page 20 of 20 Vice-Chair Davis stated there is no liaison to the Council meeting assigned for Council’s March 28 meeting. She asked Commissioner Riedel if he wants to do that. Riedel stated he would be out of town that day. One other Commissioner indicated they would be out of town and another indicated they might be also. Davis volunteered to be the liaison. 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is redo of a minor subdivision and the continued public hearing from tonight for the Lehmans slated for the April 19, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. There will be a public hearing on revisions to the Zoning Code regarding alternative energy. 8. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC • Other Vice-Chair Davis stated the Commission needs to select a chair and vice-chair. Director Nielsen stated that can be done tonight or on April 19. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending the nomination of Sue Davis to the position of Planning Commission Chair. Motion passed 5/0. Davis moved, Johnson seconded, recommending the nomination of Dustin Maddy to the position of Planning Commission Vice-Chair. Motion passed 5/0. 9. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddy seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 15, 2016, at 10:02 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder f / y V rr � MEMORANDUM 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 TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 17 April 2016 RE: Lehman, Peter and Marie — Revised Request FILE NO. 405 (16.04) In April of this year Mr. and Mrs. Lehman submitted an application for a minor subdivision/combination (lot line rearrangement), variances and a rezoning for their property at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road. Having received a negative recommendation from this department (see Planning Director's Memorandum, dated 10 March 2016), the applicants asked that their application be continued while they explore an amended request. The new request is set forth in the attached memo from Mr. Lehman. Following is our response to Mr. Lehman's revised proposal: Guarantee — Applicants's Primary The applicant states that their primary goal is a "guarantee" of clearly defined buildable areas for the two lots in order to build a home of the scale of those in the neighborhood. First, variances are granted based upon specific plans, to which the applicants are no longer willing to commit. Their original (2014) application included plans for a home that was determined to fit the size of the rearranged lots. In that instance, the closest to a guarantee would have been the year allowed to use the variance. This limitation on variances is deliberate — set up so as not to tie the hands of future City Councils. Alternative Mechanism to Achieve Defined Buildable Areas. Mr. Lehman asks if there is another way to achieve the defined buildable areas for the subject properties, such as a zoning text amendment. To write an amendment for the subject properties is essentially the same as spot zoning. As mentioned in the 2014 analysis, this case is best resolved through the variance process. The variance process also provides the City with leverage to correct the existing nonconformities to the greatest extent possible and to provide oversight as to how the still substandard lots will be developed. What amounts to a "blank check" that the applicants are requesting eliminates both leverage and oversight. Removal of Nonconforming Structures. This remains somewhat of a moving target. The 2014 application offered to remove all three of the old nonconforming cabins. Their current revised proposal is to remove two of the three structures, leaving the northernmost one in the interest of historic preservation. This Lehman Revised Application 17 April 2016 involves a separate conditional use process for which no application has been received. It should be worth noting that age, in and of itself, is not the sole criteria for granting that type of C.U.P. Also, the structure could not be used as dwelling, even if preserved. The City Code only allows one dwelling per lot. Finally, the area of the structure would count against the property with respect to impervious surface calculations. Any such future consideration of this C.U.P. should give serious consideration to moving the structure back from Merry Lane. Risk Aversion. The applicants have expressed concerns about the uncertainty of what they may make on their existing home versus the cost of building a new home on Tract B. In this regard they may wish to obtain an appraisal from a real estate professional to determine what a reasonable expectation may be. With respect to any assurance of approval from the City, again a variance based on a specific plan gains them a minimum of one year. Also, the City has routinely granted six -month extensions for this type of request. It is important to know that the applicants could, before the end of the year deadline, apply for a conditional use permit to have two dwellings on one lot, allowing them to live in the nonconforming structure while the new home is being built. This stretches the applicants' period of risk out to as much as 2.5 years. Finally, it must be realized that the plans approved as part of a variance are considered to be maximum. If the applicants decided, after approval, to build something smaller, or cosmetically different than the approved plans, they can do so. They simply could not build anything larger. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Peter Lehman -2- 4/19/2016 Lehman re\ised req uest.htm From: Peter Lehman [peterlehman @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:04 AM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Question regarding the specification of a build able area in lieu of a zoning change request. Attachments: Buildable Area - Tract A.pdf; Buildable Area - Tract B.pdf Hi Brad, As we discussed yesterday in the chambers of the city hall, we would like to postpone todays (3/15/2016) planning commision discussion regarding our lot line revision request and zoning change request to provide an amendment to that request which is yet to be formalized. Our primary goal to the zoning change request was to be able to 'guarantee' to us or another owners of Tracts A & B, a clearly defined and legal build able area that provides enough space to build a home of the scale consistent with the neighborhood (ie. 45 ft. building width which would require a 35 ft. setback from Merry Lane on the proposed 90ft wide Tract B of the RLS). As mentioned yesterday, we do not have the resources now to execute on construction of a new home. In addition we are risk averse and are concerned that our jobs, financial and /or health situation may change unexpectedly. My question is: Is there another mechanism available to us, other than a zoning change request (e.g. zoning amendment), which could afford us and /or the future owners of Tracts A & B the opportunity to legally build on the lot without blueprints in hand at this time, provided the 'TBD' homes meet some well established setbacks that we can specify at this time? The TBD homes would, of course, be subject to the building permits and side yard set back requirements for shore land lots at the time the requests are ultimately made. For example, can the code be amended to allow a well defined build able area as documented in the attached PDFs, which references the RLS and establishes a longstanding build able areas which meets the city's agreed upon setbacks established during this process? In this scenario, we would be willing to remove 2 of the 3 cabins, leaving only the existing cabin closest to the Merry Lane and Radission Road intersection (Existing cabin at 21285 Radisson Road). In this scenario, we would like to establish this cabin as a 'historic building' as allowed in the code such that a future home, if built, could keep this structure given its significance as a quaint cottage referencing a simpler time in the history of the Lake Minnetonka area where this area served as the summer 'cottages' for residents of the City of Minneapolis. As specified in the Hennepin County Tax Records, this home was built in 1940. We live on'Radisson Inn Road ", the Inn is long gone but there are a few cabins left from that era, our cabins are part of that all but gone history, keeping one, seems reasonable to remind us of days gone by and allows the opportunity for future generations to discuss the subject based on the existence of the structure and its proximity to Hwy 7 and the public access. file: / / /S: /Pacific %2OData / User° /a2OData/Planning/ 2016 %20CURRENT %20CASES / Lehman %2ORezoning- Di\Asion/ Lehman %20re\ised ° /a20request.htm 1/2 4/19/2016 Lehman revised request.htm This cabin, also provides a significant benefit to the use and enjoyment of our current primary residence at 21265 Radisson Road due to its blocking the noise and light pollution from the 30,000 daily traffic volume of State Highway-7 (11 million cars annually). The light and noise pollution from Hwy 7 extends to our primary residence home, yard and beachfiont, removing the structure would have a significant negative impact to the livability of the property. This may not have been well communicated in our current request but is a critical component of our proposal and will be included in our amendment. It should be noted that the 10 ft. concrete wall adjacent to Hwy 7 and the subject property, placed at significant expense to the state, is a direct result of the sensitivity of the designers to the impact of the Highway to those living next to it. As the expansion of the metropolitan area continues further west with the large national corporate home builders (e.g. Lennar Homes, Matthamy Homes etc.), the thousands of new homes will increase traffic and the subsequent noise and light pollution will also increase proportionally. Proposed build able area PDFs attached. Note that Tract A defined build able area has been constrained to the north to allow better site Imes of Tract B to the lake should Tract A be further developed in the future. Please call to discuss if needed. I should be available anytime today to meet at the City Hall if desired. Peter Lehman mobile: 612 -201 -8475 file: / / /S:/ Pacific ° /`2OData/User %2OData/Planning/ 2016 ° /a20CURRENT %20CASES/ Lehman %2ORezoning- Di\ision/ Lehman ° /a20re\Ased %20request.htm 2/2 Buildable Area for: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 00, Se 10 AAO /TRACT /A)1' TRACT B ` A0 H d a� .r I GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 (IN FEET) (8.5x14 sheet) 5002 -c— buildable orea_2015 DENOTES BUILDABLE AREA Containing 15,493 sq. ft. ( Carlson McCain ENVIRONMENTAL= ENGINEERING = SURVEYING 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100, Blaine, MN 55449 Phone: 763 - 489 -7900 Fax: 763 - 489 -7959 i / CHRISTMAS LAKE DENOTES BUILDABLE AREA Containing 15,493 sq. ft. ( Carlson McCain ENVIRONMENTAL= ENGINEERING = SURVEYING 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100, Blaine, MN 55449 Phone: 763 - 489 -7900 Fax: 763 - 489 -7959 Buildable Area for: Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. .goab gaal��o� 'o so �o 35 TRACT A v 0 \TRACT B\ toy C �o 35 C� CHRISTMAS LAKE I GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 (IN FEET) (8.5x14 sheet) 5002_x — buildable area -2015 DENOTES BUILDABLE AREA Contains ±6,400 sq. ft. ( Carlson McCain ENVIRONMENTAL, ENGINEERING < SURVEYI 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100, Blaine, MN 55449 Phone; 763- 489 -7900 Fax: 763 - 489 -7959 To: City of Shorewood Minnesota, City Planner, Planning Commission and City Council. From: Peter and Marie Lehman 21265 Radisson Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Subject: Amendment to proposal dated February 1, 2016 for 1) Request for minor subdivision /lot line rearrangement and 2) Zoning change request from R -1A to R -1C Location: (PID: 35- 117 -23 -13 -037 and PID: 35- 117 -23 -13 -033) 1. 5625 Merry Lane 2. 5635 Merry Lane 3. 21265 Radisson Road and 4. 21285 Radisson Road Date: April 18, 2016 After discussion and email with the City Planner on March 14, 2016, we hereby submit an amendment to our original proposal. In addition, the planning director in his Memorandum dated March 10, 2016 on the proposal combined our 2 requests for 1) the lot line revision and 2) zoning change. We understand the zoning change request may be more controversial than a lot line revision and we intentionally separated our proposal into 2 parts. We respectfully request that the lot line revision be addressed first in the context of the current R -1A zoning and the zoning change request be addressed separately. The remaining portion of this document is divided into 5 sections: 1) a high level review of our goals and the principal benefit of the request, 2) an amendment to our original request to remove an additional house, 3) a discussion on the direct benefit afforded by the remaining house with regard to neighboring noise and light pollution, 4) a discussion of the zoning change request and 5) closing remarks and restatement of our original request inclusive of our amendment. 1) Lehman Goals Review: a) To reduce the non - conformity of our property through removal of non- conforming dwelling(s). b) To revise our lot line to improve uniformity of lots with respect to our neighbors c) To improve safety by removing the non - conforming driveway on Merry Lane. d) To guarantee or otherwise be assured that there will be legal, well understood buildable areas for current and future owners of the revised lots should future improvements be made. Most significant benefit of request: • Multi- family (3) non - conforming use will be eliminated in favor of conforming single - family use. 2) Amendment to request for minor subdivision /lot line rearrangement. We would like to amend our request to include the removal of the 2 homes on Merry Lane leaving only the existing conforming use single family homes at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road. As specified in the Hennepin County Tax Records, 21285 Radisson Road was built in 1940, 75 years ago. 3) Direct benefit afforded by 21285 with regard to neighboring noise and light pollution The subject home at 21285 Radisson Road provides a significant benefit to the use and enjoyment of the adjacent subject home at 21265 and neighboring 21235 Radisson Road as it blocks the noise and light pollution from the 30,000 daily traffic volume of State Highway 7 (11 million cars annually). The light and noise pollution from Hwy 7 extends to 21265 and 21235 Radisson Road, house, yard and beachfront, removing the structure would have a significant negative impact to the livability of the properties (See attachments). It should be noted that the 10 ft. concrete wall adjacent to Hwy 7 and the subject property, placed at significant expense to the state, is a direct result of the sensitivity of the designers to the impact of the Highway to those living next to it. As the expansion of the metropolitan area continues further west with the large national corporate home builders (e.g. Lennar Homes, Matthamy Homes etc.), the thousands of new homes will increase traffic and the subsequent noise and light pollution will also increase proportionally. 4) Zoning change from R -1A to R -1 C Our primary goal to the zoning change request was to be able to 'guarantee' or otherwise assure us or future owners of Tracts A & B, a clearly defined and legal buildable area that provides enough space to build a home of the scale consistent with the neighborhood (i.e. 45 ft. building width which would require a 35 ft. setback from Merry Lane on the proposed 90ft wide Tract B of the RLS). From our perspective, the simplest way to do this and to protect current and future 2 owners of the revised lots is to have the city of Shorewood designate these lots as R- 1C from the current R-1 A. The revised lots of record will have the same well - established constraints in the city code that similar lots have on the north bay of Christmas Lake and neighborhoods to the east. As the code changes, the constraints and rules will apply to the revised lots as a matter of course, within well - established legal guidelines. We believe that the change of use from multifamily to single family, the removal of 2 dwellings and the simplicity of applying an existing zoning designation to the subject properties is justified, removes uncertainty and serves the public's interest now and in the future. As an engineer and scientist, it is my opinion that if the lot line revision be granted, then it follows that the zoning should match the revised lots. Established rules are designed, well served, and fit the subject matter they apply to. The revised lots, if approved, are essentially R -1 C, so why not make it official? That said, I have the greatest respect for the opinions of the city director, planning commission and council in their ruling on this matter. 5) Closing remarks and restatement of our original request inclusive of our amendment We are not interested in building a new home at this time as recommended by the city planner, but we are able and willing now to significantly reduce the nonconformity of our properties, especially as it relates to our use of the property. As stated by the City of Shorewood Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, in his Memorandum dated May 28, 2014 in his response to our previous lot line revision request, "Issues and Analysis ", Item 5: No doubt the most significant change that results from the applicants' plans has to do with the use of the property. Currently there are four dwellings on the two properties, three of which are questionable with respect to Building Code compliance. The applicants propose to reduce the number of dwellings to two, one for each lot, eliminating the nonconforming use. The new home, obviously, will comply with current Building Code requirements. This plan is no different than that one with regard to our use of the property, a reduction from 4 dwellings to 2. So to restate our original request Dated February 1, 2016 to the City /Planning Commission with amendment (to remove an additional dwelling) and to clarify our request for 2 separate recommendations by the City /Planning Commission... First Topic for the City /Planning Commission, Separate from the Zoning Change Request: We (Peter and Marie Lehman) would like to make better use of two adjacent lots we own and would like to make these lots compliant with the City of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan for the City, in partnership with the City. To meet this goal we respectfully request: 1) Minor subdivision (lot line rearrangement) 2) Lot area variances: • Tract A: 24,848 square feet (40,000 square feet required) • Tract B: 20,941 square feet (40,000 square feet required) 3) Lot width variances: • Tract A: 81 feet (120 feet required) • Tract B: 90 feet (120 feet required) 4) Building set back variance Tract A: • Existing garage: 12.8 feet from east side (20 feet required) Second Topic for the City /Planning Commission 5) Zoning change request from R -1A to R -1 C for proposed lots As a condition of our request, we will: 1) remove an existing dwelling located at 5635 Merry Lane (within 180 days of final approval to allow for recycling of home) 2) remove the Merry Lane driveway located within 17ft of the Merry Lane /Radisson Road intersection to improve safety and bring into compliance with city code 3) deed to the city 10ft. drainage and utility easements for revised lots (as requested) NEW AMENDMENT Dated 3/18/2016: 4) remove an existing dwelling located at 5625 Merry Lane (within 180 days of final approval to allow for recycling of home) In addition, it should be noted that: • The adjacent easterly neighbor who is most affected by this request and that stands to benefit directly from this request offers his full support (Scott Olson, 21235 Radisson Road). • No trees will be removed as a function of this request • Landscaping and the planting of 15 evergreens 6 ft. to 8 ft. in height in 2 rows has already been completed for Tract B (this past fall) to create a natural shield to remaining structures and to provide a visual buffer to Merry Lane and Highway 7 • A tree preservation plan has been established for demolition of the existing 4 o t m < D CD :. •+ CD O < q C) rD 3 w3fil iv m ul not n 'S C O< c C2 CD CD 'E. 0_O m r I = o- = � O Cc C7 CD - CD 0- CD cn Cl) O CD ZT CZ ZT O l < Ili CD CD CD l r _ -0 0 c m k' _ = p CD �• CD 0- Q 0 CQ R1 _ O O — X CD N iv C7 yl ' 3 - CD cn • _ -,� r CD CD a O • �o C CD _". � C CC] `G v ` • iv CD n C1 CD CD CD • _ . fi • 0 < Q CD cn Ln cu ,4 w OL FA LA it : � L.- 4, 0 -0 rD UQ 40 cu 3 71 ♦ rt, L'i I. �T, I N ■ FA LA it : � L.- 4, 0 -0 rD UQ 40 cu 3 71 ♦ rt, L'i I. �T, I N Subject House 21265 Subject House 21285 A`(6E Radisson Road Radisson Road 05'6 a3 Scott Olson Non - conforming (neighbor) driveway to be +yS 21235 Radisson Road N° 1 removed = _ V •, .9. �'O 1. ,yV . � •F'+'}. Few ► j. N 3 �w' • - 0'19.0. -.. \�- ^• �� � - Vlyj V • ^. d \ - c_'' c _ ^� `a"•s� Cry � rn � ' � ,V . 1 •fir AY- '" - I — _ _ � TRACT 3 24,B48f _sq ft r , a •a 'b v . (CiS 2• yd •ks' as r a 5625 Merry Lane � • ice' � _ s! habitable dwelling to be �, �' TRACT e F�3J b4 20.94.l w1E sq.fL f removed Qq + 5635 Merry Lane �'' ��� 3� ,_�� Lot line revision habitable sN - Y'�o `� �� (New Tract A and Tract B) dwelling to be _ _ m� - _ ��- ,.- ��a_ {��,_,,,.,� --� �. �• - _ - .. _ _ 4sg k removed : _= ���. �� IN 7 Ito 3-rd-Ave 4P, A AL_ PP;I Site lines • light pollution -------- X— "Fu ts 50 Looking North on Merry Lane from subject property midway between Radisson Road and Public Access House 21285 Radisson Road 7 Fall 2015 Landscaping and Qty. 15, 6 ft. to 8 ft. Evergreens planted in 2 rows (visual barrier to 21285 Radisson Road) 1® From: Scott H. Olson (owner) 21235 Radisson Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Date: April 17, 2016 To: City of Shorewood Minnesota, City Planner, Planning Commission and City Council 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Subject: Input to Peter and Marie Lehman's request for minor subdivision /lot line rearrangement and zoning change request. To Whom It May Concern: I, Scott Olson, as the immediate easterly neighbor to the subject property have reviewed the Lehman's proposal dated February 1, 2016. After review I would like to offer my full approval to that request and believe that it will be a significant improvement to the property and a direct benefit to me to have the non - conforming multi - family use eliminated in favor of conforming single family use as proposed by the Lehman's including the elimination of the southernmost house. In addition, I believe that the lot line rearrangement is also a benefit to me asst creates more uniformity in the size and shape of the revised lots with my own. Best Regards, Scott H. Olson MEMORANDUM CITY OF 1 691 1�1 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.1nn.us • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 April 2016 RE: Wartman, Tom — Minor Subdivision FILE NO. 405 (15.14) In January of 2015 the City approved a minor subdivision for Tom Wartman which split the property at 26985 Edgewood Road into two single - family residential lots (see Planner's memorandum, dated 11 January 2013 — attached). The division was never recorded and Mr. Wartman re- applied in September 2015 with the same proposal. Although recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, Mr. Wartman was distracted by an individual who thought they might be interested in the entire property as one building site. Again, the division did not get recorded and, again, Mr. Wartman has reapplied. Staff again recommends approval of the division, subject to the same conditions, except: A. Items 1 and 2 must be completed prior to the application going to the City Council, but no later than 30 days from the date it is considered by the Planning Commission. B. Park dedication fees have increased to $6500. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Homby Larry Brown Tim Keane Tom Wartman MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 11 January 2013 RE: Wartman, Tom - Minor Subdivision FILE NO.: 405(12.13) BACKGROUND Tom Wartman is the owner of the property located at 26985 Edgewood Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). Mr. Wartman has requested approval of a minor subdivision, splitting the property into two lots as shown on Exhibit B. The property is zoned R -1A/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland and contains 88,202 square feet of'area. The lot is currently vacant and characterized by an elevated knoll on its west side, dropping 11 feet to a lower area on the east side of the lot (see Exhibit C). Vegetation is concentrated on the higher portion of the property. The proposed lots will be 125 feet wide and will each contain 44,125 Square feet of area. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Both of the proposed lots comply with the requirements of the R -IA/S zoning district. Consistent with Shorewood's development regulations, the applicant has provided legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements 10 feet in width along each side of the the new lot line. Easements already exist around the perimeter of the property. Prior to City Council review of the request, the applicant should provide deeds for the required easements. ®�� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Wartnian -Minor Subdivision 11 January 2013 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 easterly lot. It appears likely that the easterly lot may require some fill in the northerly portion of the lot. The applicant is advised that if the amount of fill required will be more than 100 cubic yards, a conditional use permit will be required prior to construction of the home on that lot. 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 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 park dedication fees ($5000 per lot) and local sanitary sewer access charges ($1200 per lot). 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. 5. Once the applicant receives the resolution approving the subdivision, he must record it, and the easement deeds, within 30 days. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Deane Tom Wartman -2- (D C) a) CD LL �n 0 O LO co O L a a . a a a a a a a a L Zuaao1 I I I 1 L ,L G � a � a O 0- a I�SJL-w a U a 2I a o'l a Oa s a a a � a a a a a a a a a a OC ��erteidge a Bend a a N E c Y; v Exhibit A SITE LOCATION LEGEND AIS Denotes Advertising- Informational Sign AC Denotes Air Conditioning Unit BFE Denotes Basement FloorElevatiou CB Denotes Catch Basin :BOX Denotes Curb Box COL DeuolesBuildingColruun BEE Denotes Building Enhance Elevation TB Denotes Tele/Comm. Box/Pod :HH Denotes C.—ur cation Haudhole :MH Denotes Communication Manhole :ONC Denotes Concrete Surface :MP Denales Corrugated MetalPipe/Size DIP Denotes Ductilelmn Pipe/Size EB Deuoles Electric Box EHH Denotes Electric Handhole RAN Denotes Electric Transformer .MH Denotes Electric Manhole EM Denotes Electric Meter FH Denotes Fire Hookup FP Denotes Flag Pole FES De not es Flared End Section/Size ;ASV Denotes Gas Valve GFE Denotes Garage Floor Elevators GM Denotes Gas Meter ,DL Denotes Ground Light GP Denotes Guard Post )yW Denotes Guy Win, JCS Denotes Handicap Parking Sign JYD Denotes Fire Hydrant LP Denotes Light Pole MB Denotes Mailbox V0P Denotes No Parking Sign )HU Denotes Overhead Utility Line cKS Denotes Parking Sign PIV Denotes Post lndicat"Valve MCP Denotes Re- infomed Concrete Pipe/Size RD Denotes RacfDrain 3CO Denotes Sanitary Cleaaout 3MH Dean les Sard ary blenbole SV Denotes Septic Vent STP Denotes Stop Sign �TMH Denotes Storm Manhole rRS Denotes Traffic Control Sign TL Denotes Traffic Light JGC Denotes Underground Communication Line JGE Denotes Underground Electric Line JGG Denotes Underground Gas Line 3AN Denotes Underground Sanitary Sewer ST Denotes Underground Storm Sewer UP Denotes Utility Pole JLP Beetle: Utifity/LigbtPole rNH Denotes Top Nut of Hydrant WH Denotes Water Manhole WV Denotes WalerValve T A -1 Denotes Wetland Deliueatim"agldertilier - - Denotes Existing Contour R'$0 Denotes Proposed Contour 0 Denotes Found Monument -As Denoted Q Dent —Found Cast- Iron - Movement O Denotes lf2 "by 14" Iron Pipe Set and Marked by License No. 40344 Cl? 58 Ai t— NORTH UNE OF LOT 10 a,a � DWROAD vie 11 — GD RL� 1397 \ a N89 °58',17 "E , — 0 124.95 ? "' UP J FiAE1 1NORTHWEITL ORNERT OF LOT -" —" T70 ' T_ 10 I I ( I I I 124.96 6' 2 F,ij, t /2. 0P.4 I O \ LIJ k� gl 0- 3 al t� O al oI O E; F I •9 5i Z m I o I I I I I I L----- - - - -- ?:bt I I I I 9+5._ n i r- 1 1MC1 9JG.� Gl PARCEL I rrj F " PARCEL 2 I I LJL_Vvr\ I o ( ? I a W •9a ?= 0 4 � I I t0 o I /'\T I z 4 l ak I N II I z i I ` to o NNL 1 I� • rai.5 I \ I . i�r ., I \ I I 9st.e I I I I 318 3 I I CP I I I 10 I L. T9 K& coal 124.95 °.'.- ui, s las ,0 . —tiny 124.96 -'- N89 058'07 "E 1 / y.249.91 FD 'rfFy1�' SOUTH UNE OF LOT 10— // rLS 13297 (\T 7 954.5 Fc15 7T, rn lus nza I I I I I /\T �A Exhibit B PROPOSED SUBDIVISION