Loading...
07-19-16 Planning Comm Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 19 JULY 2016 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE DAVIS (Aug) ______ RIEDEL (Jul/Dec) ______ MADDY (Oct) ______ BEAN (Nov) ______ JOHNSON (Sep) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7 June 2016  21 June 2016  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE IN FRONT SETBACK Applicant: Deborah and Kenneth Hoops Location: 23755 Smithtown Road (Co. Rd. 19) 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Ryan Krieger Location: 20920 Forest Drive 3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. AMENDMENT FOR BUILDING ADDITION Applicant: Valvoline Instant Oil, Inc. (Rep., John Kosmas) Location: 19465 State Highway 7 4. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Chris Hamdorf Location: 26425 Arbor Creek Lane 5. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING OPTING-OUT OF TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLING LAW 6. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-2A, SINGLE AND TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL (continued from 7 June 2016) Applicant: John Benjamin Location: 24250 Smithtown Road Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 19 July 2016 Page 2 7. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Applicant: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Location: 21445 State Highway 7 8. 8:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 1004 (RENTAL HOUSING CODE) REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTAL 9. CLARIFY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REZONING REQUEST Applicant: Peter Lehman Location: 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road 10. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 11. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 12. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 13. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  14. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Maddy and Riedel; Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Hornby; and, Council Liaison Sundberg Also present: Commissioner Johnson Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Bean seconded, approving the agenda for June 7, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  May 3, 2016 Maddy moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF OVER 400 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AND DEPOSITING OVER 100 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL Applicant: Thomas Wartman Location: 27135 and 26985 Edgewood Road Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She explained the Planning Commission is composed of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for removal of over 400 cubic yards of soil and depositing over 100 cubic yards of fill. Director Nielsen explained Tom Wartman has requested a C.U.P. for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for his property located at 26985 Edgewood Road. He is proposing to bring in about 3000 cubic yards of fill to improve the buildability of the property. During its May 9, 2016, meeting Council approved a subdivision of that property into two lots but it has not been recorded yet. There is a new house being built on the property located at 27135 Edgewood Road and that necessitates the removal of 1200 yards of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 2 of 16 fill away from that site. That fill will be brought to the Wartman property. Removal of more than 400 cubic yards of fill also requires a C.U.P. Both C.U.P.s are being handled as one matter. Because this is more of an engineering matter he asked Engineer Hornby to come to this Public Hearing to answer any questions the people may have. Hornby had provided comment on both of the items. Some owners of properties located near the Wartman property have expressed concern about bringing in the fill. He thought Hornby’s review addresses those concerns. The 26985 property is zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential and contains 88,202 square feet of area. The land is surrounded by single-family residential development, also zoned R-1A/S. The 27135 property is more than an acre in size. The most significant issue with this type of application is drainage. Where is the water going to go? Would it adversely impact the surrounding properties? Engineer Hornby has been working with Mr. Wartman and his engineer to make sure drainage issues are resolved. The meeting packet contained a copy of the grading plan for the Wartman property. The front of both of the two (the subdivided) lots will be filled to accommodate the buildings on the two lots. The property has a fair amount of water flowing through it mostly coming from the east and mostly going toward the west. Water is stored in the area marked with yellow on the grading plan. Engineer Hornby’s recommendation is that both the rate and volume of the water flowing off of the site has to be controlled. He displayed a drawing (distributed to the Commission that evening) showing how that area would accommodate the same amount of water storage as the current lot does. Drainage is not an issue on the 27135 lot; the lot where the fill is being removed from. Commissioner Bean asked Engineer Hornby to describe what the arrows on the drawing are attempting to show. Engineer Hornby explained on the grading plan included in the meeting packet the yellow outer ring contour indicates where water is currently stored on the site. There is a private storm drain that drains to the northeast across another property and into the lake. He had told the developer that can remain but it has to be relocated because of the location of where the building pad would be. For the proposed scenario the developer has been told that he needs to maintain the same amount of volume on site as the current site has. He also needs to provide a one inch rain fall event for 25 percent impervious surface on the lot. That is the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed in a shoreland overlay district. The developer increased the size as shown on the drawing Nielsen distributed; it provides that volume. As a requirement the developer needs about 12,200 cubic feet of storage; they are providing 12,300 cubic feet. The lot grading has to maintain the drainage for Edgewood Road which currently flows into the low area. An attempt has been made to account for the amount the lot currently stores as well as the future impervious surface that would be generated on the lot. Commissioner Riedel asked if the water is stored in the form of a marshy area. Engineer Hornby stated it is a low area and he assumes there is some infiltration that occurs now. He has not found standing water there. A water service was put in for a new house on a property a few lots to the west near some very sandy soils. There may be a layer of sand where the storage infiltrates. It looks like there was an area that was excavated as a pond on the property to the west. It is somewhat an extension of a larger low area that would overflow to Noble Road if it overflowed. Riedel then asked if the lot that is located between the subject lot and Noble Road is higher in elevation. Hornby stated the lot directly to the west is about the same elevation. Chair Davis stated the owners of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 3 of 16 properties along Noble Road behind the subject property have concerns about drainage. Hornby stated based on what the developer’s surveyor found the emergency overflow from the subject property overflows on to Edgewood Road before it goes over the lots to the south. He clarified that after a heavy rain event there may be some water that is stored. Per the City Ordinance the development cannot make the drainage worse. Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M. Julie Scheurer, 26930 Edgewood Road, noted she and her husband live across from the Wartman property to the north. Their property is downhill across from the lake. She stated they have concerns that the drainage off of the Wartman property will increase because of the proposed project. She has not heard anything about the height of the property after the fill has been added to the site. Will the fill be spread out or will there be a big mound of fill? Depending on what is done it will make a big difference on drainage. She is concerned because there is a manhole on the Wartman property and she does not know where it goes. It may come down through her property. She is not aware of there being any easement obtained by anyone that allows for drainage to flow over her property. She explained she and her husband did a project about 15 years ago that involved putting in a retaining wall and a cement pad down by their home and built an attached garage. They saw a clay pipe in the retaining wall. They asked the builder at the time what that pipe was. Everything was fine for a while and then one year later there was a lot of water flowing out of that pipe across their driveway pad near their home then across their lawn into the lake. She expressed concern that it could be from the manhole. She remembered seeing Mr. Wartman coming on to their property and looking at the pipe. She does not know what he concluded. That was the only time they observed drainage flowing across their property. When water first started flowing out of the pipe they went across the street to find out where the water was coming from; that is when they saw the manhole. It was an old manhole that was not secured. There was a torrent of water going into it. Sometime later they went over there to look at the manhole again. It had been secured with a new cover and it had been relined with new brick. She asked where the drainage goes from the easterly most lot of the two subdivided lots that are directly across the street from her property. Her concern is only about damage to her property that could occur if the volume and rate of flow increase. She stated if a couple of mounds were placed on flat land it seems like a creek or moat would be created that would direct that the flow into the manhole. It visually looks like it will always be the lowest point. She expressed concern about lake quality because it is unwise to have unfiltered water flow into the lake. Currently the relatively flat area of the two Wartman lots have acted as somewhat of a filtration area for the water coming from the surrounding contiguous area which she thought was higher. That was the low point of the neighborhood other than the lots along the lake. Visually to her all of the properties drain onto the Wartman lot. She is concerned that the water may end up flowing on to her property instead. She asked what the maximum height of the added fill can be in any one place. Director Nielsen stated for the westerly of the two Wartman lots it goes up about six feet and for the easterly lot it would be close to five feet. That would be at the steepest points. Ms. Scheurer then asked if there have been calculations made to determine how much fill is needed to achieve those heights. The staff memo states the C.U.P. is for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. Nielsen stated the amount of fill that would be brought onto the sites would be a total of about 3000 cubic yards. She stated she would like to have a map of the drainage of the surrounding properties and the pipes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 4 of 16 In response to a comment from Chair Davis, Engineer Hornby noted there is no City storm sewer in that area and stated he thought that Ms. Scheurer was talking about the storm drain on Mr. Wartman’s property. He thought there was a beehive or a catch basin grate. Ms. Scheurer asked how much responsibility the City would take by allowing that much fill to be brought onto the site and creating a moat that ultimately directs the water to the manhole if the water does in fact come through her property. Tom Wartman, 28120 Boulder Bridge Drive, noted his uncle moved to the 26985 Edgewood Road property in 1939/1940 with his wife. He explained that Ms. Scheurer is referring to a grate on a storm drain that had been installed sometime during the 1920s. It is a 6-inch or 8-inch clay pipe. It has a flat grate on it which has never been changed. The brick is the original as far as he knows. Water drains to the grate from the 26985 lot. The drain only takes extra water. The elevation there is approximately 944. The houses to the south, based on the grading plans he has looked, at are approximately 9 – 10 feet above that elevation (about 954). The overflow to Noble Road to the west is at a 946. The overflow on Edgewood Road is 948. His engineer and Engineer Hornby have worked to show that after the two new houses are built on the two lots created by the subdivision the area of drainage is going to remain the same; in fact, it would be able to take an additional inch of water during a storm. The 26985 lot is 88,202 square foot (or about 2.2 acre) lot and was recently subdivided. The house on the westerly new lot will be a rambler look-out style. The house on the east would be a two story look-out style. Both would be custom homes. The builder of the the house on 27135 Edgewood Road will build the two custom homes. They each have wanted to build on the lots for over six years but that did not work out because of the poor housing market. The additional fill that would be brought to the site would be used where the house footprints will be. Wartman stated when his uncle lived on the 26985 property there was a house, garage and storage building on the site. Those were removed because they were in a state of disrepair. From an impervious surface perspective only one new house is being added. The clay drain pipe has been working in excess of 80 years and it will continue to drain some of the water. That storm pipe does come out across the Scheurer’s driveway. It was there when previous owners lived there during the 1950s. He stated the clay drain pipe is not going to be expanded. It would be on the northwest corner of the easterly lot. There is enough drop in elevation there. The pipe would be extended toward the rear of the house; to the south. It would do the same thing as it has done for more than 80 years. No more water would be added to that drain. There is no other hard surface being added. The fill that would be brought to the site would not increase anything from a drainage pattern. Water does not overflow the road toward the Scheurer’s property because the elevation of Edgewood Road there is about 950/951. The low point is near the northwesterly corner of the lot. There is a swale between the new construction built a couple of years ago and the old Steben’s home which has been remodeled. The swale takes the water down to the lake. Water that comes to Edgewood Road at 948 drains to the swale then in to the lake. Any water that goes westerly across the Bell’s lot drains into the lower area on that lot and it overflows at 946. Wartman stated he is trying to be a good neighbor. He commented the home values would be in excess of $1 million. He noted his company does quality work; it developed Boulder Bridge Farms. He no longer builds homes. He noted he met with the property owners to the south. Mr. Wartman offered to entertain questions. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 5 of 16 Commissioner Maddy stated if the 948 elevation does get reached because of significant rainfall that would result in 2 – 4 feet of water column going into the private clay pipe. Mr. Wartman stated that overflow at that point would be going in both directions and noted if that happened today the same thing would happen. Maddy stated he agrees with what has been presented. But, the problem that is of concern is an existing problem. Mr. Wartman stated there is no existing problem. The clay drain pipe has been there for more than 80 years and there has been a house on the Scheurer’s property for possibly just as long. He noted that the water in the catch basin will not be increased at all. Chair Davis stated that theoretically the water should be decreased because it is going back into the retention area. If the grading plan is correct and the contours work the way they should almost all of the water should flow to the back. Mr. Wartman noted his 26985 property has been taking on water for years. He stated it is the last site to be redeveloped. He does not think he and the builder should be penalized for that. They are meeting all of the specifications the City Engineer has requested. Engineer Hornby stated from an engineering perspective the developer cannot change the drainage pattern and what is being proposed will not. All of the water from Edgewood Road and from the lots flow to the back as it does today. He noted Mr. Wartman has explained the overflow correctly. He stated the overflow is to the north; not to the south. It goes through the property where the house built two years is. Because the storm drain is there today they are allowed to maintain that on the site from an engineering perspective. Ms. Scheurer explained the drainage has not historically flowed over their property. It was a new development because of their retaining wall going into that clay pipe. It is now an open pipe that faces toward their home. It is only separated from their home by a cement pad. Therefore, any water flowing out of that pipe flows towards their house. The pipe is about 2.5 feet above the cement pad. The one time that water flowed out in a torrent it dropped down like a waterfall. The pipe had been buried in the ground previously. She assumed it had been connected to something. There must be another pipe somewhere on their property. She knows there is some type of a culvert to the lake. She does not know if that was originally connected. When they had the retaining wall constructed it interrupted that pipe. She is concerned about the integrity of their home because when water comes out of the pipe it is shunted at their home. She noted they got a permit to construct the retaining wall. The City did not have any problem with their plan. They did not know the pipe was there and they do not know if the City knew it was there. She asked if there could be a dyke on the easterly Wartman lot to mitigate some of the water that would come from that area which is supposed to be absorbing the water. If it is not it would be coming into her yard, flowing across her yard, and then into the lake. That would be unfiltered water. She stated she agrees with what Mr. Wartman stated. It seems that properties contiguous to his lots drain onto his lot. When they looked at the manhole it was in the northeast corner of the easterly new lot. It was not far from Edgewood Road. Ms. Scheurer asked the City and Mr. Wartman to reconsider the drainage plan. She stated because of the amount of fill proposed for the new lots she assumes they could protect her property somewhat if potentially all of the properties are going to drain across her yard. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 6 of 16 Commissioner Maddy asked Ms. Scheurer how long they have lived in their home. Ms. Scheurer responded about 30 years. Maddy then asked how long she has seen a drainage problem. Ms. Scheurer stated they have never had any issues. She explained their home has a basement. She remembered one year the lake level was so high they ended up with a little water in their basement. Their home is about 4.5 above the lake level. A basement is probably not a good idea for a house that is fairly low to the lake. She expressed concern about the structural integrity of her house and the possibility of the concrete cracking because of an open drain pipe facing her house. Maddy asked if water pools on Mr. Wartman’s property. Ms. Scheurer stated a few times she has seen standing water. A few times she saw water collect behind Mr. Wartman’s uncle’s house if there was a lot of spring thaw or a lot of rain. They never knew how the uncle drained the property. The water just disappeared in a day or so and it did not come across their yard. She commented it looked like swamp vegetation where water drains to on Mr. Wartman’s property but they never went back there to look at the area. Ms. Scheurer again expressed hope that Mr. Wartman would protect their property from unintended consequences from raising the two lots where the two houses would be built. Building the houses will result in there being a smaller area for water to drain into. Engineer Hornby explained the City requires the developer to mitigate the amount of volume that would be increased by the fill brought on to the site. That is what the developer has proposed. That is what the revised plan Director Nielsen provided the Commission this evening shows. If there is a drain in place it can still go there. The property owner to the south did not modify the pipe to the north. It sounds like the Scheurers did when they had the retaining wall constructed. The pipe was cut off and it is now draining on to their property. He does not know how long it has been exposed there. Hornby then explained the developer has proposed to mitigate the existing volume of water that would be held on the site in the new design and they have added storage to compensate for the impervious surface which has a maximum amount of 25 percent. The City required an additional 25 percent of storage. Even though the developer is going to build the lots up for the building pads and even if the water drains towards Edgewood Road the water would flow down the common property line between the two new lots and on to the back. Chair Davis stated the plan indicates there is a swale down the middle. Hornby explained the swale extends from the low point, which would be the emergency overflow to the north if it gets that high, and captures the water from the road and sends it to the back. Hornby noted there were a number of very heavy rainfall events in 2014. Water came out of many areas that it normally does not come out of all around the City mainly because of the terrain. That may be why that was the only time the Scheurers saw water come out of the drain. He assumes it was in June 2014. Mr. Wartman stated he thought Engineer Hornby addressed some of the things he was going to address. He clarified there is no swamp on the 26985 property. There is a low natural area somewhat to the southwest. There is pampas grass up front; it is not cattails. His father and uncle planted the pampas grass. Unfortunately, that would be covered because that is where the driveway would go. Mr. Wartman explained he understands that Ms. Scheurer and her husband have lived there for 30 years. He knows where the storm drain comes out in their retaining wall and empties out onto their driveway. It does exit to the lake to the east of their house. Before they cutout their driveway the pipe was buried there. He used to maintain the previous owner’s yard when he was a teenager. He knew there was a low spot down by the lake and there was always drainage. He also knew his uncle had a storm drain in his yard. He thought that in the spring the Scheurers would likely find the drain pipe frozen; there would not be excessive water in the spring time. There is some percolation that happens. He reiterated he and the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 7 of 16 developer are trying to be good neighbors by not changing the drainage pattern. What currently happens is going to continue on. There will end up being two beautiful houses on the two new lots which require fill being brought on to the lots. Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. Commissioner Bean asked what would happen if the drain was plugged up so it basically ended on the 26985 property. Engineer Hornby stated it would likely overflow the roadway at the newer house that was built just east of Noble Road on the north side. Hornby explained he thought there is about three feet difference between the inlet to the pipe and the roadway overflow point. Bean stated if the private clap pipe were severed he asked what the water lift would have to be before it would flood across the street. Hornby stated there would be just under four feet of storage. Bean asked how much rain would be required to get four feet of lift. Hornby stated a hydraulic model would have to be run for that. Bean stated he assumes it would take a lot. Hornby concurred. Hornby stated if the pipe were plugged it could adversely affect the two new properties. He then stated if the developer wanted to cut the pipe off he could do that. The developer’s engineer would have to provide a hydraulic model to show that it would not adversely affect his properties or other properties. Chair Davis asked Mr. Wartman if he would want to do that. Mr. Wartman reiterated the clay pipe has been in place for more than 80 years. He stated Ms. Scheurer has lived there for about 30 years and the conditions are not going to change. He noted there has not been a problem for all of those years and stated he does not want to do something that would affect his properties or other properties. Commissioner Maddy noted he thought the engineers have done a great job showing that there would not be any change in the drainage pattern. Therefore, he does not think there is a reason to recommend denial of the C.U.P. He expressed concern about the condition of the pipe in Ms. Scheurer’s yard if there were to be a significant rain event. He recommended the Scheurers hire a professional to figure out a way to reconnect the pipe or find a way to shield their property in the event there were two or four feet of water on top of the drain on the Wartman property. He noted it is a private property issue. Commissioner Riedel noted he agreed with Commissioner Maddy that the argument has been made that the drainage pattern would not be changed and therefore there is no reason to recommend denial of the C.U.P. He stated stormwater running into lakes is a negative because of the health of the lake. He thought the number one priority is to reduce stormwater directly running into lakes. If a change could be made to capture and filter the water before it flows into the lake that would be better for the health of the lake. For this particular drainage pipe it depends if it is intended for unusual rainfall like that in 2014 or routine rainfall. Engineer Hornby clarified the existing clay pipe is for an overflow when the water gets up to a certain level. He explained that after looking at the site and at aerial photos and considering the fact that there is no indication of wetland on the site it appears that the water infiltrates in to a sand layer. It is very healthy for a lake to have the water infiltrate. When the developer builds the two new houses he would have to apply for an erosion control permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD would review the drainage pattern as well. Maddy moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for removal of over 400 cubic yards of soil and depositing over 100 cubic yards of fill for Thomas Wartman for the properties located at 27135 and 26985 Edgewood Road. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its June 23 meeting. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 8 of 16 2. PUBLIC HEARING – APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF BOATS ALLOWED AT NONCONFORMING DOCK (continued from May 3, 2016) Applicant: Radisson Road Easement Holders Location: 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11) Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing 7:47 P.M., noting the hearing was continued from May 3, 2016. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to continue its consideration of an appeal of administrative determination of number of boats allowed at a nonconforming dock at 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11). She stated because this is a continuation the Commission will not take public testimony unless someone has new information to present. Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. Paula Callies, 20465 Radisson Road, expressed concern about the letter from Shorewood Attorney Keane (a copy of the letter was included in the meeting packet). She stated Keane’s letter references correspondence submitted to the DNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). That was not included with the copy of the letter she received or in the meeting packet. There was no way to tell from Keane’s letter what was being referred to and what was actually stated. Director Nielsen did send her that correspondence on June 6, 2016. That correspondence was referring to shoreland regulations and that is a different section of the City Code. That is different than the issue being considered by the Planning Commission this evening. She stated that many of the people interested in this situation have spent a lot of time preparing, gathering and submitting materials to the City and ultimately to the Commissioners. She expressed disappointment with the brevity of Attorney Keane’s memorandum. The letter basically recites what the DNR letter states. The letter does not do any analysis of it and from her perspective it is incorrect in that regard. She explained the issue before the Planning Commission is a legal issue. In a way it is not something the Commission should be weighing in on with regard to what happened years ago. The matter went through the Minnesota Court of Appeals in terms of determining the easement and the scope of that easement. The matter was sent to the Minnesota Supreme Court which denied review. That means the Court of Appeals decision stands. She stated some of the easement owners are asking that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the four boats be allowed at Lot 11. There has not been a conclusion that the DNR has ever approved Shorewood’s regulations regarding the docks and boats on Christmas Lake. Ms. Callies thanked the Planning Commission for its time. Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M. Commissioner Bean stated it was his recollection that the issue at the end of the May 3 hearing was about jurisdiction. Albeit Attorney Keane’s letter was brief he understands it to say that Shorewood submitted its shoreline and shoreland regulations to the DNR for its review and acceptance. He asked if it is the City’s position that the DNR’s acceptance gives Shorewood the ordinance authority. Director Nielsen responded yes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 9 of 16 Director Nielsen noted he had spoken with Attorney Keane about this. He explained the City’s shoreland regulations are just one section of the City Zoning Ordinance; the regulations are not a standalone ordinance. There are definitions in the front of the Zoning Ordinance. The shoreland district itself is an overlay district. There is a base zoning map and Lot 11 is zoned R-1C. There is a shoreland overlay for it. The requirements for the shoreland district are superimposed over the R-1C district. If there is a conflict between those two parts of the Ordinance the more restrictive applies. The uses are addressed in the districts; in this case the R-1C. Every district has a list of allowable uses. There are permitted uses and they do not require any special scrutiny. An example is a single-family home in a single-family zoning district. Accessory uses (e.g.; a garage) are listed. Docks are accessory uses in the R-1C/S zoning district by virtue of Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 14. It specifically states “docks as per regulated in Subd. 14”. The DNR reviewed that whole ordinance and approved it initially in the mid-1980s and again in the 1990s when some of the ordinances were changed. The DNR saw what the City’s Code included in its entirety. He noted that is the thread Keane’s opinion is based on. Commissioner Bean stated based on that thread and by virtue of the DNR’s approval the Shorewood Code prevails. The Shorewood Code adopted the language of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) in its ordinance. Director Nielsen concurred. Bean stated Shorewood adopted the LMCD’s code; it is not asking the LMCD to weigh in on this issue. Shorewood adopted the code to save typing it into the Shorewood Code. Nielsen concurred. Bean stated based on what he has heard Shorewood has established a shoreline ordinance that defines the parameters with one of the parameters being one boat per 50 feet. There is also a nonconforming use because there is no dwelling on Lot 11. Any change that increases the use would expand the nonconformity of the dock usage. Based on that he does not think there is a choice to allow more than two boats at the dock. Commissioner Riedel concurred. Commissioner Riedel stated that two boats are permitted for the length of shoreline easement on the front of Lot 11. The Zoning Code would allow for up to four boats if there was a dwelling on the Lot provided that all four boats were owned by the residents living on the property. He noted from his vantage point it is a nonconforming use of the dock and therefore the regulations should apply. He agreed there is no choice but to limit the number of boats at the dock to two. Commissioner Maddy and Chair Davis concurred. Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending denial of the appeal of administrative determination of number of boats allowed at a nonconforming dock at 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11). Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen noted that Council will consider this item during its June 27 meeting. Chair Davis continued the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY REGULATION (continued from May 3, 2016) Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing 7:59 P.M., noting the hearing was continued from May 3, 2016. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to continue an amendment to the Zoning Code regarding alternative energy regulation. Director Nielsen noted the amendment to the Zoning Code is essentially what the Planning Commission recommended approval of for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) planned unit development (PUD) project. He explained there was discussion about PUDs having language that does not prohibit the use of alternative energy. The proposed amendment deals primarily with solar energy. The City’s energy consultant had indicated that wind energy would be an issue for the City but it should be considered on a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 10 of 16 residence by residence basis. The amendment stipulates that for any development there should not be a protective covenant that says solar energy facilities would not be allowed. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to come up with alternatives to traditional electrical and gas utilities that power communities. There are several things the proposed Code amendment would allow that are currently not allowed. He noted the amendment includes provisions from the model provided by the energy consultant as well as from ordnances from other municipalities. He stated the amendment includes a list of nine standards for solar energy systems. He reviewed what the standards are. 1. Height – The maximum height requirements for roof mounted systems are the same as the applicable zoning district. An exception is made for ground-mounted solar energy systems which shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Ordinarily accessory uses are limited to 15 feet in height. 2. Location – In residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems are limited to the rear yard. In non-residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems may be permitted in the front yard of any lot or the side yards on corner lots, subject to applicable building setback requirements. 3. Setbacks – Ground-mounted solar energy systems, including any appurtenant equipment, shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from all property lines. Roof-mounted systems shall comply with all building setbacks in the applicable zoning district and cannot not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. 4. Roof mounting – Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be flush mounted on pitched roofs. Generally they will have a 4:12 pitch. Solar collectors may be bracket mounted on flat roofs. 5. Easements – Solar energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage and utility easements in roadways or trails. 6. Screening – Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without reducing their efficiency. Screening may include walls, fences or landscaping. 7. Maximum Area – In residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a maximum area of 120 square feet. In other zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a maximum area consistent with the accessory structure limitations but no more than 25 percent of the rear yard, whichever is less. 8. Aesthetics – Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows. Where necessary, screening may be required to address glare. 9. Feeder lines – The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. He noted that solar easements were purposely not included in the amendment because for residential properties it would become a choice between one property owner being able to have trees or not and another property owner being able to have a solar system. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 11 of 16 He reviewed the safety elements in the amendment. a. Safety Standards – Electrical 1. All utilities shall be installed underground. 2. An exterior utility disconnect switch shall be installed at the electric meter serving the property. 3. Solar energy systems shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the national electrical code as adopted by the City. 4. No solar energy system shall be interconnected with a local electrical utility company until the utility company has reviewed and commented upon it. The interconnection of the solar energy system with the utility company shall adhere to the national electrical code as adopted by the City. b. Certification – The solar energy system shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., and comply with the requirements of the International Building Code. c. Abandonment – Any solar energy system which is inoperable for 12 successive months shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. He noted that building-integrated solar energy systems shall require a building permit prior to installation. Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall require a zoning permit, pursuant to Section 1201.07 of this Code prior to installation. He stated space has been reserved in ordinance amendment for future use for wind energy systems and ground source heat pump systems. In response to a question from Chair Davis, Director Nielsen explained if a solar system is going to be interconnected to a household electrical system it needs to be approved by a power company. Commissioner Maddy stated that part of the interconnection agreement on solar generators requires a user to go through Xcel Energy. It is a long process. Xcel goes through all of the UL listings. Sometimes Xcel requires a disconnect on the side of the house. If the solar generator does not find a certain UL listing the generator stops generating power. The generator could not be used during a power outage. Xcel would buy the power back. Stopping the generation of power is for the safety of the line people. Council Liaison Sundberg stated utility companies have a lot of incentive now to encourage solar use. They have state mandates they need to reach for renewable energy use among their clients. They are very accustomed to working with small to large solar installations. Chair Davis asked if there are any residents in Shorewood using solar energy. Council Liaison Sundberg noted Mayor Zerby is. Director Nielsen stated he is aware of some small panels. Commissioner Maddy stated there are a couple of ground-mounts on a property in a cul-de-sac near Crescent Beach and noted they would be nonconforming if this ordinance amendment is approved. Council Liaison Sundberg stated she thought there is a lot more interest in solar energy now than there had been in the past. She guessed that the economics for Mayor Zerby’s system are not very attractive. She stated in Shorewood there are limitations because the City is densely populated and there are a lot of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 12 of 16 trees which are valued. She commented that she does not think any solar advocates would encourage cutting down trees so solar panels could be put up. She stated from her vantage point she does not encourage the City take on wind energy. Wind energy is technically viable but it is very controversial in a densely populated area at this time. Commissioner Bean asked if those residents who have solar energy systems that would not comply with the proposed ordinance amendment would be grandfathered in and allowed as an exception. Director Nielsen stated they would have to be and clarified if the systems were noncompliant with safety standards they would have to be addressed. He noted the Ordinance contains language about nonconformity and anything that predates the approval of the amendment would be grandfathered in. Bean then stated if, for example, he had a solar panel and the canopy of his neighbor’s oak tree encroaches into his airspace he asked if he would be allowed to trim that tree. Director Nielsen stated he would be allowed to do that and he has been told that if a tree extends over a property line the canopy can be cut off but a person has to be very certain about where the property line is. He noted that he is not an attorney. Commissioner Maddy stated in his former career he read a legal opinion that stated a person cannot intentionally kill a tree. Chair Davis, as a master gardener, stated gardeners used to think that once two-thirds of the canopy is removed the tree should be taken down. Bean went on to state he has concern that there would be some disgruntled neighbors taking out vengeance against each other because one property owner owns the air space a neighbor’s tree is occupying. Chair Davis concurred. Bean stated he would like there to be something saying that existing trees are entitled to their own airspace. Director Nielsen stated that would be a “can of worms”. Director Nielsen noted that people frequently underestimate how big the tree will grow. They may plant it five feet from the property line and eventually it grows to the point that its canopy is 20 feet over the property line. Chair Davis stated in Shorewood Oaks the houses are very close to the trees. Commissioner Bean stated there is a similar situation in the City of Greenwood along St. Albans Bay Road. Davis stated that hopefully people who embrace solar energy are also tree huggers. Commissioner Maddy asked if the Planning Commission is supposed to move the ordinance amendment forward to Council for its consideration. Director Nielsen stated that is up to the Commission. Nielsen explained the amendment in front of the Commission has been published in the City’s official newspaper. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:20 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated he thought the solar energy systems aesthetics provision was quite subjective. The reflection angles can be adjusted for a ground-mounted system. He questioned how that would be done for a roof-mounted system. He thought it should be less subjective but was unsure how to make it so. Director Nielsen stated screening would be irrelevant if it was roof-mounted. Commissioner Bean suggested the provision should maybe only apply to ground-mounted systems. Nielsen stated he thought the roof-mounted systems are angled toward the sky. Commissioner Maddy stated he supports removing that for a roof-mounted system. There was consensus to change the aesthetics standard to make the reflection angles apply only to ground- mounted systems. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 13 of 16 Commissioner Maddy stated the definition for a flush-mounted solar energy system includes “The pitch of the solar collector may exceed the pitch of the roof up to 5% but shall not be higher than 10 inches above the pitch.” He asked where the 10 inches above the pitched roof restriction came from. Director Nielsen stated he thought it was intended to be more of a limitation to ensure they are not, for example, four feet above the roof. Chair Davis commented there is a house that has been under construction for a very long time that has a roof pitch so steep she does not think solar panels could be put on it. Nielsen stated a roof-mounted system would not work in that instance. Maddy then stated the maximum area standard for ground mounted systems is 120 square feet. He asked if other cities have the same standard. Director Nielsen stated that size is consistent with the size of a normal shed. Chair Davis stated a 10 x 12 foot panel is a big panel. Maddy noted he thought the maximum size is reasonable. Maddy asked if it would be prudent to restrict wind systems before someone wants to put one up. Director Nielsen stated that is typically what has been done in the ordinances he has looked at. They may make some exceptions for vertical turbines. Maddy reiterated his question. Nielsen suggested addressing wind systems separately. Council Liaison Sundberg concurred and noted that technology is rapidly changing. Commissioner Bean asked if there is anything in the ordinance amendment or Ordinance in general that would prohibit wind systems today. Nielsen noted the height requirements would and explained the City’s energy consultant had indicated that it would be difficult to get the systems up high enough in the City. Chair Davis stated someone may want a small system as a novelty. Sundberg stated the wind map for the area the consultant provided showed there was little area, other than the middle of the lake, where wind systems would work. Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the ordinance amendment regarding alternative energy systems subject to changing in aesthetics “Reflections angles from collector surfaces…” to “Reflections angles from ground-mounted collector surfaces…” and in screening changing “Solar energy systems shall be screened …” to “Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be screened …”. Motion passed 4/0. Commissioner Maddy noted he appreciated the work that was done on this. Director Nielsen noted Council had indicated that this was a high priority. Council Liaison Sundberg thanked people for getting it done and the Planning Commission for supporting it. Nielsen commented that it is finally done albeit it took a long time to do so. Council Liaison Sundberg stated Shorewood is already starting to be recognized as an environmental leader. She noted the results of the last resident survey indicated that 79 percent of the respondents supported clean energy. Commissioner Riedel brought up the idea of municipal tax rebates for residents who install alternative energy systems. Director Nielsen noted there are incentives from other agencies. Commissioner Bean asked if geothermal energy is an option. Nielsen responded yes and noted it is quite expensive. He stated the other alternative energy types will be addressed in the future. Nielsen explained someone has geothermal in a pond and recycles the water. Wells can also be used. Chair Davis noted that when the new visitor center was built at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum a geothermal system was put in. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 8:33 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 14 of 16 4. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-2A, SINGLE AND TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL. Applicant: John Benjamin Location: 24250 Smithtown Road This item was rescheduled to the July 2016 meeting. 5. MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB FINAL PLAN – REVIEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Director Nielsen stated the Development Agreement for Mattamy Homes’ Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) planned unit development (PUD) final plan was given to the Planning Commission for informational purposes per the Commission’s request. He noted the Agreement has not been approved by Council yet. Council will consider it during its June 13 meeting. The Agreement lays out all of the rules for the development of the MCC property. He explained the base district for the PUD project is the R-1C. The Council meeting packet item for the final plan and final plat will include a setback map for the project showing the setbacks for each lot. Chair Davis asked if Mattamy is still trying to convey Outlots I, J, K and L. Director Nielsen responded he thought those get conveyed to the owners of the adjoining properties on the southeast corner of the site. Chair Davis explained that Item 3.B states “Maintenance and necessary replacement of boulevard trees within the PUD shall be the responsibility of the HOA.” She thought the trees were going to be kept out of the boulevards. Director Nielsen clarified the City initially wanted the trees to be planted in the yards so the City would not be responsible for them. Mattamy wanted the boulevard affect. The solution to that is for the MCC Homeowners Association to be responsible for them. He noted the landscape plan reflects a variety of trees. Director Nielsen noted the total amount of park dedication fees received from this project combined with what the Park Fund has in it should come close to paying for the improvements to Badger Park. 6. DISCUSS SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING ON JUNE 21, 2016, REGARDING OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Director Nielsen explained that Oppidan Investment Company needs Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to help fund its Shorewood Senior Living project in Shorewood. Oppidan found out there are extremely poor soils on the site. The TIF would help pay for the cost of soil remediation. When Oppidan first started discussion of this project with representatives from Shorewood and the City of Excelsior Oppidan was going to be able to connect to the Excelsior water system. Excelsior was going to extend its watermain. Excelsior later decided that its water system did not have the capacity to serve to the Oppidan project. Therefore, the Shorewood watermain will be extended to the site. The TIF will pay for part of the cost to extend Shorewood watermain to the site, Oppidan will pay part of the cost and part of the cost will be funded out of the Water Fund. The extension will allow Shorewood residents currently served by the Excelsior system to then be served by the Shorewood system. The extension to the other side of Highway 7 will eventually allow for the extension of watermain to some properties on that side of Highway 7. He noted the TIF plan has to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and it needs to make a recommendation on the plan. To maintain the timeline of the TIF there needs to be a special Commission meeting on July 21. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 15 of 16 He stated there maybe another item on that special meeting agenda. The State legislature has discussed a law that would ultimately allow people to bring in temporary residents as caretakers. It would basically allow people to bring a small trailer to the site and live in it. There is a provision that would allow cities to opt out of that. He noted that he thought the law is a bad idea. He stated the City has tried to accommodate that with accessory apartments. He then stated he thought the special meeting should be short. 7. DISCUSS JULY MEETING DATE Director Nielsen stated that for the last few years the Planning Commission has had a policy to not hold its regular meeting on the first Tuesday of the month if that Tuesday comes after a holiday. Therefore, he suggested the July meeting be held on July 19. Doing that would not slow down processing any applications. He noted the items considered that evening would considered by Council during its July 25 meeting. The property rezoning for John Benjamin may be on the agenda for that meeting. Peter Lehman has asked for a specific vote on rezoning his property near Christmas Lake so that would be on that agenda. There is a request for a 6-foot-high fence for a property next to Highway 7. To place it in within the required setback to the Highway requires a conditional use permit. There will be a variance request for a shed. Commissioner Maddy asked when food trucks would be discussed. Director Nielsen stated not for a while. Director Nielsen noted that from his perspective short-term rental is a higher priority for discussion because there are two properties where that is a problem with one of them being a significant problem. The City’s rental housing code needs to be strengthened. He stated the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) has been to the very problematic site on a couple of occasions because of noise complaints. The SLMPD has offered to report on the activity at the property such as the number of cars. He expressed his appreciation to the SLMPD with regard to that matter. He thought this issue would be on the August meeting agenda. Chair Davis stated the City of Duluth addressed that by requiring a rental to be a minimum of seven days. It also required a $350 license and inspection. They sold their house there instead of dealing with that. She noted that on the VRBO (vacation rental by owner) website she found three properties in the City of Excelsior and one in the City of Tonka Bay. Director Nielsen noted the meeting agenda for the July 19 meeting should be fairly full. 8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 9. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS None. 10. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA This was discussed under Item 6 on the agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 16 of 16 11. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Director Nielsen reported on the May 31, 2015, work session during which a presentation was made about a person’s grand vision for the area including Badger Park, City Hall, the Southshore Center and commercial strip on the southeast corner of the Smithtown Crossing Development Area (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). There was ensuing discussion about the vision. • SLUC Director Nielsen stated he still intends to purchase a DVD recording of the April 27, 2018, Sensible Land Use Coalition session which was about park dedication fees. • Other Chair Davis suggested the Planning Commission discusses the liaisons to Council for July through December. Council Liaisons were selected as follows: July 2016 Commissioner Riedel August 2016 Chair Davis September 2016 Commissioner Johnson October 2016 Commissioner Maddy November 2016 Commissioner Bean December 2016 Commissioner Riedel 12. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 7, 2016, at 9:10 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson, Maddy and Riedel; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison Sundberg; and, Finance Director DeJong Also present: Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for June 21, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. SPECIAL MEETING 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) DISTRICT FOR OPPIDAN’S SHOREWOOD SENIOR HOUSING Director Nielsen turned this item over to Director DeJong who has been working with Administrator Joynes and Springsted Incorporated (the City’s financial consultant). Director DeJong noted he has been working with Administrator Joynes and Springsted Incorporated (the City’s financial consultant) on a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan proposed for Oppidan Investment Company’s proposed Shorewood Senior Living planned unit development (PUD). DeJong provided a high level summary of the TIF Plan. TIF is a financing tool used to help pay for extraordinary costs incurred by development.  Oppidan’s proposed Shorewood Senior Living PUD qualifies for a TIF redevelopment district.  The TIF District for this PUD would be the project site which is a combination of three lots (6020  and 6050 Chaska Road and 23075 State Highway 7). The Tax Increment Project Area will be designated as the entire City.  A TIF District can last up to 25 years. For this project the District will be in place for about 19  years. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 21, 2016 Page 2 of 7 The intent of TIF is to capture the taxes generated by the increase in the TIF District’s value.  The current value of the three parcels for tax purposes is $985,000 and the value after the project  is complete is projected to be $17,194,320. The current tax collected for all of the jurisdictions on the existing three parcels is $21,955 and the amount after the project is complete is projected to be $214,929. The taxes collected on value of the property before development would continue to go the taxing  jurisdictions during the existence of the District. No jurisdiction would lose tax revenue because of the TIF District. During the time of the existence of the TIF District the City would capture the increase in taxes  and use them to make improvements to support the project as well as public improvements Council deems appropriate. The City can spend up to 25 percent of taxes generated by the project outside of the District but  the remainder must be spent on improvements within the TIF District project area (e.g.; dealing with the exit off of Highway 7 onto Chaska Road). For this project there would be almost $1.9 million in costs related to the site itself and there  would be about $1.3 million in costs to extend Shorewood municipal water from where it stops at Yellowstone Trail and Minnetonka Drive to the project site. In nineteen years the tax revenue received by Shorewood from those three parcels will increase  from $4,383 to approximately $83,315. In nineteen years the tax revenue received by the School District will increase from $3,218 to approximately $63,084. In nineteen years the tax revenue received by Hennepin County will increase from $6,578 to approximately $125,016. That increase in tax revenue could not happen without TIF because it would not be financially feasible for Oppidan to develop the site without it. The City’s portion of the project would be financed internally with an inter fund loan.  The City would issue a TIF Note to the developer that says the City would repay the developer as  the TIF comes in. The actual water costs directly are a little more than $800,000.  The extension of Shorewood watermain is quite costly. Council gave preliminary approval to  finance the extension though cost sharing. Oppidan will contribute $400,000; $300,000 will be used from the Water Fund; and, water hookups should occur along the new line and bring in approximately $300,000. Oppidan originally proposed contributing $200,000 because at that time Excelsior municipal water was going to be extended to the site and that was going to cost about $200,000. TIF project benefits to the City include things like installing a stormwater pipe to replace the  stormwater ditch. Curb and gutter and stormwater along Chaska Road would be put in. The ditch allows power lines to be buried. As a result the landscaping setbacks could be increased and the height limitations for new trees would be eliminated. There will be funding available for some local traffic improvements which are yet to be determined. Watermain would also be extended to the south side of Highway. Commissioner Maddy asked how many additional properties would then have access to City water because of the watermain extension. Director DeJong explained there are 22 properties that are currently hooked up to the Excelsior water system that could move over to the Shorewood water system once it has been extended. Once Shorewood watermain is south of Highway 7 watermain could potentially be extended to other Shorewood properties in the future; for example, to near Galpin Lake Road. Maddy then asked if the watermain would be a dead end on the other side of Highway 7 or would it be looped. DeJong explained it would be a dead end with a lot of water moving through it. The proposal is to have about 105 living units in the facility so there should not be any issue of water being stagnant too long. He noted the pipe would be oversized so it could serve the rest of the area down there. There would be enough capacity to serve fire suppression and future connections. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 21, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Riedel stated with TIF the City would essentially be foregoing the additional tax revenue during the existence of the TIF District. Based on his calculations the City would forego about $3 million in taxes over the 25 year period in exchange for an increase in property value estimated at $18 million. He asked if that is correct. Director DeJong explained the value will go up over time and the TIF calculations have factored in an inflation factor of 1 percent. Hennepin County has told staff that its best guess right now is the taxable value would be about $165,000 per unit. Taxes on those units will not be collected until starting in 2019. There is a lag of about one year from the time the project is complete until the start of collecting full taxes. DeJong noted he would not call it foregoing taxes. He clarified that Oppidan is going to pay the taxes on the new value. The incremental tax that will be generated from the increased value will be used to pay the extraordinary costs associated with the development; costs above and beyond what it would be for a greenfield site. Riedel stated his understanding is that the basic premise of a TIF is that it should be considered if there are extraordinary costs but specifically for blighted land (specific conditions). Although it is not the case here, the use of TIF has been criticized elsewhere as being a mechanism that is overused by municipalities to develop perfectly good farmland. He stated from his perspective because of the cost for extensive soil correction and because of the cost to extend municipal water this is an appropriate use of TIF. Director DeJong noted that in addition to the need for extensive soil correction there are some hazardous materials in some of the buildings on the project site. That causes the TIF to meet the statutory requirements for blight. He clarified that there could be a perfectly serviceable building and still meet the blight conditions under the statutory language. Director DeJong reiterated the City would not be able to have the less than four acres in size site extensively developed without TIF. Commissioner Riedel asked if the premise of TIF is that the financing should only be provided for a project that otherwise could not or would not be done without TIF. There is no other project that could increase the value of the property for tax purposes by the same amount. He stated from his perspective if there were other projects then he does not think TIF would be appropriate. Director DeJong confirmed that and stated it may be possible to develop the site with four houses. Commissioner Bean stated if Oppidan were to move forward with its proposed project he asked what the tax rolls would be without TIF. Would Oppidan not do the project without TIF? Director DeJong noted if Oppidan does not get TIF it would not move forward with its proposed project. Bean asked what would happen to the tax stream if the City did not approve TIF yet Oppidan moved forward with the project anyway. Director DeJong stated there would be an increase in tax revenue for the City. Director DeJong explained there is a statutory requirement called the but-for test. That means that it has to be validated that the proposed project would not be viable for the developer without TIF assistance because the return would be too low or negative. Council needs to come up with that finding. There is a meeting with Springsted to review the but-for test and to verify the returns with and without TIF in the developer’s proforma. Bean asked how the projected value of the development was determined. DeJong explained Hennepin County has a standard value for new senior living projects. That is what was used to determine the value. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 21, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Bean then asked what assumptions were used to come up with the projected $300,000 in revenues from water hookups. DeJong explained the assumption is the City will get 30 hookups with a $10,000 water connection charge for each hookup over the course of the next 20 years. Bean asked what the expected adoption rate would be. What percentage of the property owners would hookup? DeJong stated because of issues with ground water availability and quality staff expects that at some point there will be a mandate for property owners to hook up to municipal water. Bean noted that he thought that is an optimistic forecast. He stated it took about 20 years to get to 1972 before there was water clarity in Lake Minnetonka of about 18 inches on a good day; that came after sanitary sewer hookup mandate was put in place. Bean asked what the adoption rate has been connecting to City water for the watermain that has been extended over the last 10 years. DeJong stated that over the last five years the only place watermain has been extended was along Star Lane and about half of the property owners have hooked up. That project was completed in 2015. Bean then asked if he should assume that there would have to be 60 properties that would have new access to watermain in order to achieve a 50 percent hookup rate. DeJong stated that is possible. Bean asked DeJong to give him more confidence that additional homework had been done to come up with the $300,000 projection for hookups. DeJong stated staff does not have much experience with that. He noted that people are starting to experience more issues with having arsenic in their well water. He also noted the $300,000 is a ballpark figure. He explained the City Ordinance does have a requirement that if a property owner’s well goes out and if access to City water is available then the property owner is required to hook up to City water. Bean commented that those ordinances got him thrown off the City Council 20 years ago. Bean went on to ask what the backup plan is if the City does not get anywhere near the $300,000. DeJong explained if everything works out the way the proposed financing plan is laid out all of the costs for the watermain extension and the street improvements and costs the other things associated with the proposed project will be covered by the TIF. The City is not relying on the water hookups to fund things. The financing proposal is what was originally presented to Council when staff was trying to estimate the costs. The City’s costs in total are about $1.4 million; that includes the costs for watermain extension and other improvements such as traffic improvements. Of that, Oppidan is contributing $400,000 toward that. If the City finances Oppidan for just under $1.9 million as it requested then the City should be able to cover the $1 million for the watermain extension and other City improvements and pay itself a modest amount of interest. Bean asked if that can be done without funding from the Water Fund or the hookups. DeJong clarified upfront financing needs to come from the Water Fund to cover to $1 million; there is about $3 million in the Water Fund so there would be more than adequate funds to maintain the water system. The Water Fund will be paid back over time as the developer gets paid back. Bean asked if staff is comfortable with the numbers. DeJong noted he is very confident that the TIF can cover the City’s costs. Bean stated 13 years from now the City’s demographics may be different. What would happen if Oppidan’s project is not successful and it abandons the facility? DeJong explained staff has spoken with the City Attorney about having a minimum assessment agreement between the City and Oppidan in place so that the value does not fall below the original projection. It would provide protection for both the City and Oppidan if the project was not successful. That would provide sufficient tax increment over the existence of the TIF District. That assessment is absent any increase from inflation. He stated it is possible that Oppidan could develop the site and lease the facility and then sell the project to an investor; CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 21, 2016 Page 5 of 7 that is what some developers do. Bean noted that Oppidan stated it would not do that during the public hearing on the PUD. Oppidan intends to own and develop the site and hire Ebenezer to run the facility. Bean asked what would happen if Oppidan bails. DeJong stated he would have to rely on the City Attorney’s expertise. Bean then asked what the collateral would be for the assessment agreement. DeJong stated that is a legal question he is not prepared to answer. Bean noted that is a concern for him. The City is going to spend a couple million dollars on infrastructure on the premise that the City is going to get paid back plus some over the next 19 years. Director Nielsen noted the assessment agreement goes with the property. Bean stated if Oppidan bails the project fails; it would no longer be a PUD and the tax value plummets. DeJong stated he does not know why the tax value would plummet. Bean stated the City should enter into this arrangement with a clear understanding of what the risks could be for the City if things went poorly with the project or with Oppidan. He then stated the area could become over saturated with senior housing which the market cannot support resulting in some senior housing development not making it. He commented one plan B could be the City may have to eventually bond for the some of the cost. Director DeJong stated there is additional coverage for this TIF District because it is not going to be in existence for the full 25 years. If something drastic happens 10 – 15 years into the existence of the District then it would just take longer to pay the money back. But, it would not go down to zero. Commissioner Bean concurred and stated it could go back to being residential property where the tax appears to be $0.10 on the dollar when compared to the proposed use based on the current chart versus future taxes. Director Nielsen stated the bank that would end up owning the building would likely demolish the facility and put up twin homes in its place. Bean stated the bank would not hang on to the property; it would get it off its balance sheet. Commissioner Maddy asked what amount of TIF would be dedicated to this project. Director DeJong stated the developer would have an investment of about $1.87 million in the proposed project. The City will issue the developer a note for that to be repaid over the course of 25 years at 5.5 percent interest. Maddy stated it appears to him that it would be a 10-year TIF deal. He asked if people are expecting it to be fully repaid in about 10 – 13 years. DeJong stated there is about $1 million in City costs that also has to be repaid and noted the payback period is about 19 years. Maddy asked if people have estimated the increase in demand on City services because of the higher use over the 19-year period. DeJong stated that would be minimal. There may be some modest increase in calls for public safety services. Senior living places generate a few calls a month. The City is already plowing the roadway and there would not be any additional property to maintain. Director DeJong noted that the resolution included in the meeting packet states “… the proposed Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole and the Planning Commission recommends the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan to the City Council of the City of Shorewood for its approval.” Commissioner Bean asked if other taxing authorities like Hennepin County and the Minnetonka School district have to approve the TIF Plan. Director DeJong noted a copy of the draft Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan have been sent to the County and School District but they have no decision making authority. Commissioner Maddy asked if the developer has shared with the City how much they paid for the three parcels. He stated he has been aware of developers asking for TIF because they overpaid for properties. He then stated the three properties have poor soils and lack access to municipal water. That should have CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 21, 2016 Page 6 of 7 been factored into the purchase price for the properties. Director DeJong stated he thought the total price for the three parcels was about $1.4 million; it was about 40 percent over the assessed value. He explained the structure over the assessed value is that there should be a 95 percent confidence level that the property is going to sell for more than the assessed value. There is a time lag on the assessed value. What was considered was the assessed value of those parcels in January 2015. That value was based on sales from October 2013 through September 2014. He thought the developer did a good job negotiating the purchase prices; the total was not unreasonable. Maddy concurred. Commissioner Riedel asked Director DeJong to talk about the process of negotiating the TIF. Was the detail about the amount the City would provide an active negotiation with Oppidan? Director DeJong explained WSB & Associates analyzed Oppidan’s proforma to determine what costs would be considered extraordinary and what costs would be considered normal development. There was some back and forth negotiation of that. There was also negotiation about how much Oppidan would contribute towards the cost of extending watermain. He reiterated that Oppidan originally proposed contributing $200,000 because at that time Excelsior municipal water was going to be extended to the site and that was going to cost about $200,000. Excelsior decided not to extend its watermain to the development site because Excelsior staff did not think the Excelsior water system had the capacity to support the Oppidan development and future anticipated development in Excelsior. Oppidan doubled its contribution to $400,000. Director DeJong noted staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolution included in the meeting packet. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, Adopting “A Resolution of the Planning Commission Finding the Establishment of the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment District No. 2 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 2 Conform to the City Plans for Development or Redevelopment of the City as a Whole.” Motion passed 4/1 with Bean Dissenting. Director DeJong explained that there is a special Council meeting and Shorewood Economic Development Authority meeting scheduled for July 14, 2016, to approve the final TIF Plan. Commissioner Bean encouraged staff to have more concrete facts and figures on what makes up each of the numbers. For example, what has been the adoption rate for which property owners hooked up to City water after it was made available to them. Having that would provide Council with a better understanding of what the risk would be before it considers the approval of the TIF Plan. Also, provide insight on the probability of there eventually being a state mandate for property owners to hookup to municipal water. Director DeJong stated that currently there are about 1,700 properties where there is municipal water available and about 1,400 are hooked up. That adoption rate is 82.3 percent. That is probably the long- term adoption rate. Commissioner Maddy stated from his perspective it is about a $1.9 million TIF deal because the rest of it is the City’s pipe and money. It amounts to about a 10-year deal which does not seem as risky. Commissioner Bean stated then it should be stated that the worst case scenario is the City is in for $2 million and it can afford that. The project is an objective the City wants for a number of reasons. Even if the project failed the City would have to have spent some of the money. He asked that be explained to Council. He clarified that he was not saying the project is so risky that it would be unsafe. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 21, 2016 Page 7 of 7 Commissioner Riedel stated from his perspective the risk of the project’s value going to zero dollars is low. 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 3. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS None. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated this topic was discussed during the Planning Commission’s June 7, 2016, meeting. Chair Davis asked when the Commission is going to discuss short-term rentals. Director Nielsen noted that will be on the July 19 meeting agenda. Davis stated she gathered all the documents for short-term rentals in the City of Duluth. She tried to pull the permit documents and learned there is a one-year moratorium on short-term rentals in Duluth and that was up June 15. Director Nielsen noted that the agenda for the July 19 meeting is quite full. Commissioner Riedel stated Michael Jordan looked at a house on Ridge Road that he contemplated renting while the Ryder Cup event was going on. Chair Davis asked if that house was listed on an online site. Chair Davis stated there are a minimum number of things people have to do to their homes before they rent them. She suggested putting a list of them on the City’s website. 5. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC Chair Davis stated Arctic Fever is being nominated for a Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) best place. SLUC has an event category. • Other 6. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddy seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 21, 2016, at 7:52 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder f� IF l rr n Lrt J OF CITY FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: Brad Nielsen 13 July 2016 Hoops, Deborah and Kenneth — C.U.P. for 6' Fence in Front Yard 405(16.13) BACKGROUND Deborah and Kenneth Hoops have requested a conditional use permit to construct a six -foot high, alternating board on board (shadowbox) fence across the front of their property at 23755 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). The property is zoned R -2A/S, Single and Two - Family Residential /Shoreland and contains approximately 22,130 square feet of area. This portion of Smithtown Road (aka County Road 19) is designated in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan as an arterial street. The fence in question will be located as shown on Exhibit B, extending across the front of the applicants' property, for approximately 70 feet and eight feet back from the right -of- -way of County Road 19. The new fence is a replacement of a nonconforming solid fence located in the same spot (see Exhibit. C). A photo of the fence is shown on Exhibit D. Exhibit E describes how the applicants propose to landscape the fence, so as to soften the view of it from the street. Since the proposed fence stops short of the applicants' driveway, no gate is proposed. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Shorewood's fence requirements typically limit fences in front yards to four feet in height. An exception was established several years ago for properties abutting arterial streets, as defined in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. In order to mitigate the impact of these busier roadways, the Code now allows fences up to six feet in height, by conditional use permit. The criteria for such a C.U.P. is set forth in Section 1203 Subd. 21 of the Zoning Code. Following is how the applicants' request complies with the criteria: 1 The fence must be located at least eight feet from the property line. This is intended to provide space for landscaping. The proposed fence is eight feet back from the right -of -way of Smithtown Road. Memorandum Re: Hoops Fence CUP 13 July 2016 2. Landscaping for the subject fence is somewhat complicated. In addition to existing tree cover, landscaping needs to grow on the shaded north side of the fence. The plants proposed by the applicants appear to be both shade and salt tolerant. It is important to realize that landscaping is, a key element to this type of C.U.P. As such, it is recommended that the applicant be required to submit a bid from a landscaper, based on the proposed landscaping, for use in determining the amount of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee that the work will be done. The security must be 1.5 times the amount of the bid and should extend through the growing season next year. It is strongly recommended that the landscaping be completed by mid- September of this year. 3. The location of the fence takes into account traffic visibility. Between the right -of -way for County , Road 19 and the fence, there is ample room for cars on the County Road to see cars exiting the site. In light of the preceding, it is recommended that the applicants' request fora conditional use permit be approved, subject to the applicants providing a letter of credit or cash escrow for 1.5 times the amount of the landscape bid. The resolution approving the C.U.P. should also state that the C.U.P. is valid as long as the proposed /required landscaping is maintained. Cc: William Joynes Tim Keane Deborah Hoops Tonka B is_lanct 1stana N 0 300 600 1.200 Feet ee d Cake Mtka R Cr UT e O L Subject -# �- Property Excelsior H e e � - o� � a � C U e� Minnetonka RI int s Country Club if Pak St C-D O� a N L o `ZA(a' li'rl•..q W Na fA 161 I;f u .v:�. �n ;t. as ez.... ._.�.. ... -..... ..._ -.. _ .. - co'; �rc��ed •fie ..� � M c Z4 kh ��. ci y % � • /_ ✓.� / fin; fo /-�y.� ��cs�YCi-.. L} •1 C0 L� Q •� C 1 �t Exhibit B SURVEY (PARTIAL) ■ m 0 \ O c _ M @ \ \ 2 \ / � _ 2 a e / } § a � 2 $ \ I 2 M _ Z > � \ \ \ \ �e p \ / / \ \ e e n 00 $ n § � D o > \ > > > 9 \ \0 \(ƒ / -0 / \ \ \ q ƒ20/ SCI x$20$ t$ _� / }/J 2 r- ƒq m\ /Aq /q 0 c \ $ 3 \ a / ®@=e eww�e m \ a <m@y \ //o > m@/ .. $ , g 2 e a M E..¥- « = \ H \ Mz -0 > MZM> 2Z3> % «§m/ ® C o _ 0 = 2 % ] \ \ e w ƒ ƒ \ ? \ E$% 7 T. n e °Ea2 / e C) CD Eta //« / e _ ■ m 0 \ O c _ M @ \ \ 2 \ / � _ 2 a e / } § a � 2 $ \ I 2 M _ Z > � \ \ \ \ �e p \ / / \ \ e e n 00 = 6 :E % ƒ })§ n § � D o a2�§!E ] )§ \ \ \0 \(ƒ m m3 EEyj \ +} g .. ~ t$ _� / }/J m Z $ > \ } \ \*�\ �2 ` \r / ° k - ; ID `° - \)\ � CD CD . � H O « � � � � 0 � � � � O _0 CD � � � � � 0 / \ / 0 Ay N I~ � � Z a C n 0 = 0 �v 6 � ° N o o CTS Q O O m Co C =• y m m y N N a d m� m CO m m m m x m n 02 3 m y O. a m m m N N m (D a c, n Y Ln �r \ G i� V a C n ' v y O O i �a Q c t_ n 7 u y C C) m (D 0 >r y K � o m 3 w m nm _ m ' = m ° ` _T o ` m y m •O m o m b r7 se m m sCD °-0o N N N m A m m p m y V m m m 3 m H < m = N N ° .N � o � m a o m o m o m m •o c m5 o 3 R o o° Q S 3 m 3 O O 0 7 4 o :E y 3. m �_ o E C 3 m� o aEr m m K F O ; m O G (xD m I m c to m 3 m ° °O w o 3 m m 3 d o ym 7 Q' 3 m o N Int a a. fn o ig DD N N Cr m C r d y 3 a o F- f m T 3- v •m° •D w D `� 3 g• m 7 l l(ZT' w• 3 n N �o M y y m v 3 V1 N I~ � � Z a C n 0 = 0 �v 6 � ° N o o CTS Q O O m Co C =• y m m y N N a d m� m CO m m m m x m n 02 3 m y O. a m m m N N m (D a c, n Y Ln �r \ G i� V a C n ' v y O O i �a Q c t_ n 7 u y C C) m (D -+ N N o m m o+ m a m y' m L v �.:c ° m m O � 3 3 ? C 3 m y � a O � c � S mm � by - � o Od c m c �• C) 3 :r ;o M m CA O Z c 3 w � 0 r � a ° O a 3. � ck v zl N � s CD N t) � S � o N (D T f37 � CL c TI m y � O C) N ` Sll � O M 3 m w m to Z O c� m > a y O n m W N C1 00 N -a = m a Q ° rr -n o CD 3 V ~ 2 �= O g a 0 y CO (D 2, N v .fin• N m O 0 (D C) CL C) CD m C CD 0 v a y x 00 o O a m 0 O CD CD C. O R� C]. 0 X CD t N g O N a m Cn O fD O �i 0 CD CD d O b 'C w 00 Y, J Y C C) CD 0 '-1 r�C` J•- •__�_...� i .._� ._.. -... K � o m - _ m ' = m 3 �lll1) -+ N N o m m o+ m a m y' m L v �.:c ° m m O � 3 3 ? C 3 m y � a O � c � S mm � by - � o Od c m c �• C) 3 :r ;o M m CA O Z c 3 w � 0 r � a ° O a 3. � ck v zl N � s CD N t) � S � o N (D T f37 � CL c TI m y � O C) N ` Sll � O M 3 m w m to Z O c� m > a y O n m W N C1 00 N -a = m a Q ° rr -n o CD 3 V ~ 2 �= O g a 0 y CO (D 2, N v .fin• N m O 0 (D C) CL C) CD m C CD 0 v a y x 00 o O a m 0 O CD CD C. O R� C]. 0 X CD t N g O N a m Cn O fD O �i 0 CD CD d O b 'C w 00 Y, J Y C C) CD 0 '-1 r�C` Dear Brad and Planning commission, May 27, 2016 Re 23755 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN 55331— Fence Application After studying the existing natural wooded area between the Smithtown road and our proposed fence, we intend to preserve the trees and undergrowth. We have consulted with a master gardener and several books dealing with the shade and clay soil conditions. We propose to enhance the fence area by adding Parthenocissus quinquefolia ( Virginia creeper) to grow on the fence and as a ground cover and native Adiantum pedatum (Madenhair fern) at the base of the fence to blend in with the existing vegetation. Thank you, Deb and Ken Hoops Exhibit E PROPOSED LANDSCAPING CITY OF HOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • w«a.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @dshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 12 July 2016 RE: Ryan Krieger - Setback Variances FILE NO.: 405 (16.14) BACKGROUND In May of 2015, the City approved setback variances for David Moe to build a new home on a very nonconforming lot located at 20920 Forest Drive (see Attachment I - Planning Director's Memorandum, dated 29 April 2015). Mr. Moe has arranged to sell the property to Ryan Krieger, who proposes a slightly larger house than the one included in the Moe variance. As explained in his request letter (Exhibit A, attached), Mr. Krieger proposes essentially the same house as approved for Moe; with the exception that he would like to add living space above the garage. Plans for the proposed house are attached as Exhibits B -F. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The rationale for recommending approval of the Moe proposal holds for Mr. Krieger's request. The current plan building footprint requires no more variance than that which was approved previously. Approval of the Krieger request is recommended. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Ryan Krieger Joe Pazandak Patti Helgesen May 19th, 2016 Dear Mayor of Shorewood and City Council Members, My name is Ryan Krieger and we currently have a Purchase Agreement for the lot at 20920 Forest Drive. The current owner David Moe wrote a letter last April requesting a variance to build because of the lot being super narrow and tapering to the east. His variance was granted on May 26th, 2015. We have stuck to the current footprint that was approved last May, but added square footage above the garage. We are a family of 6, with 4 young kids and needed the additional space above the garage for two more bedrooms. I, myself went to Groveland Elementary School, Minnetonka Middle School East and graduated from Minnetonka High School in 2004. 1 loved the Minnetonka School Systems, the Communities within and could see no better place to raise my own kids! Due to the narrowness of the lot, we can't currently build without having a variance approved. I would appreciate your vote for this variance and thank you for your consideration. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Ryan Krieger 952 - 239 -5227 Exhibit A APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Hoops Fence CUP 0 m m « c o � o q $- I I I I 1 NNC M N � x�.-i 6'8 K a,z o p o J > o p O X N Q1 p u rn o 14 3� 5A v, °6�6 s x n O � q J % p 0) m W X N m v ° 1 006 ° Il. I by yl q $- I I I I 1 NNC M N � x�.-i 6'8 K 1 1 o J > o p m no A N l0 9 9 m O I l 4 N 1 I, 1 N N n N oIN47 "Oi0°i c >o Y ma ov e o any e Z oo« > a�Q3 o °a rn o, p p ti -mC C�D pNi O .t7 .h o o j> o `voom Nh WWII I� a 2 - �4 �4 Q1 p u rn o 14 3� 5A v, °6�6 s x n O � q J % p 0) m W X N e 40.0 m x DO e° q N �n, W a N n a N a m � OZZ m v ° 1 006 ° Il. I by yl q $- I I I I 1 NNC M N � x�.-i 6'8 K 1 1 o J I p m no A N l0 9 9 m J I l � a 3 „60W.SO w � � 1 I, 1 1 e 40.0 m x DO e° q N �n, W a N n a N a m � OZZ So41 9I1Srlg r W h2 v t� N W =s o vm oov U � U O = O m y N U C _ v o v« v U 4 C U b i 0 v m �P1ry ° l mb.«y 006 ° Il. I by yl q $- i °. X9 rI �° oO 1 Z I m NNC ` E- x�.-i 6'8 O 4 m no A h l0 9 9 m 00 04 S a 3 „60W.SO w � � So41 9I1Srlg r W h2 v t� N W =s o vm oov U � U O = O m y N U C _ v o v« v U 4 C U b i 0 v m o y m �� NNC tiU °ry O h c p p ti -mC C�D I `voom c my3�.'cJ I a Os y 1 a >° I 1 � m I o C O J O v 0 t hW w a u fY- W U °i co o� a Utz U Exhibit B SITE PLAN /SURVEY Exhibit C BUILDING ELEVA'T'ION — FOREST DRIVE Exhibit D BUILDING ELEVATION - RUSTIC WAS' Ei Exhibit E BUILDING ELEVATI ®N - EAST SIDE Exhibit f BUILDING ELEVATION — SIDE NORTH I( CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - ,SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 (952) 960 -7900, FAX (952) 474 -0128 j wwwxi.shorewood.mn.us • cityhail @,ci.shorewood.mmus MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FRO1VIs Brad Nielsen DATE': 29 April 2015 :RE.. Moe; David = Setback Variances FILE NW -405 (15:07) BACKGRO UND - Mr. David Moe owns the property at 20920 Forest Drive (see Site Location map —Exhibit A„ attached). The. property is significantly substandard with respect to its width. For that reason ' he lias had difficulty,niarlceting the property: Prospective buyers .want assurances that they can build anew home on the site; and those assurames.can only come with the granting of setbacic variances. Consequently, Mr., Moe has designed a home for the site, and'applied for the'' necessary variance to construct a home on the lot, The property is zoned R -1D /S, Single - Family Residential and contains 10,288 square feet of area. The lot is only 49 feet wide at the frorit building line, tapering to 37.5 feet at the rear of. the site. :As'can be- seen on the survey (Exhibit B) and the proposed Site I Plan (Exhibit C); the ` lot is unbuildable without some sort of variance from the current standards. The width problem is compounded on the south side of the lot; where the `setback is 30 feet for the side yard abutting the 'street. That, with the north side l 0 -foot setback; leaves a buildable width of lessahan I0 feet. . The house plans illustrated on Exhibit C,, show the proposed house located only 10' -10" from the ht-'of- way o - Forest Drive - a 19 -foot variance. The house is also located six feet-from the northerly lot line, a four -foot variance; but maintaining the setbacic for the existing home. • The: proposed house contains 1023 squat' feet of floor area on each of two levels. The proposed garage contains 440 square. feet.. Building elevations are shown on Exhibit_ s D through D -4. Mr, Moe's request is set forth in "his letter, dated 2. April (Exhibit E). ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION It is worth noting that the initial plans submitted by the applicant included more and greater setback variances: After working with staff, Mr. Moe redesigned his plans to eliminate the .a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Attachment I Memorandum Re: Moe Variances 29 April 2015 need for a front yard setback variance and a setback variance for a driveway serving the home. In addition the depth of the house and garage were decreased so as to minimize the extent of the variances which are part of this application. In addition to the nonconformity of the existing lot, the existing house does not currently meet setbacks on the north and south sides of the lot. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the building setbacks render the lot unbuildable. Variances are to be evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. The applicant's request appears justified, at least in part, based on the following factors: 1. The narrow width of the lot is aggravated by the fact that the lot is a corner lot with a 30- foot, side yard abutting the street requirement. Also, Forest Drive is a dead -end road with a right -of -way (60 feet) that exceeds the minimum 50 -foot standard prescribed by the Shorewood Subdivision Code. As proposed, the house will be 20 -30 feet from the paved surface of the street. 2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. Construction of a single- family residence is considered a reasonable use of property in the R -1D /S zoning district. A two -car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in Shorewood. Some cities go so far as to require at least a three -car garage. The City has in past cases recognized that the inability to have at least a two -car garage in Minnesota constitutes a hardship (now practical difficulty). 4. The applicant did not create his practical difficulty. Both the house and lot were created prior to current requirements, and the property has never had a two -car garage. Further, the house was built in 1938 and is quite substandard from a Building Code perspective. 5. The proposed garage is modestly sized for two cars and is not considered to be oversized. 6. Despite the relatively small lot size, the proposed home will only result in 17 percent hardcover on the site, whereas 25 percent is allowed. Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the applicant's request be granted as proposed. It is important to remember that the variance must be used within one year. If the applicant chooses to request an extension to that deadline, he must request it prior to the end of the year. Cc: Bill Joynes Joe Pazandak Tim Keane Patti Helgesen David Moe -2- b 5� 0 mll N O z O LL LU z< El El Cl) 3mMe � mm ?� /lffA .gal Illi�lll� ' s w �L Q U) (n v, T- N El f Exhibit A SITE LOCATION L, zi !86 m w tl, / .tt I X . '*T (� N N .� I X 41 Cl O O 41 �I 4 =mode � 3! p ' 40. 00 QO R°a q 4t 1 L f e� ^ ° L O � -�-�' _ f of C O p CN 4 Lo 4 ,.A q � 1 { N C y rn `s Di o b w 179 Q N�0 L•O jt 9'61 M tti `js d O -N 4 Z Q Gil \ . I N °j l�il o Q) O ID LO V N 16 k I x v 1 .... ...... i 1 s Exhibit B ...... EXIS'T'ING SURVEY ...:.:......: n \ ` ` ` | ' . ' .''. . . ` . . � . . ` . ` . ` . ` '| `. ./ \' .. .| `. .. `. \' `. | `| | � ~ LL ^ > � � U) & �0w U ---' ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` 0 RUSTIC WAY Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN Exhibit D BUILDING ELEVATIONS D -2 D -3 s � � April 2, 2015 Dear Mayor of Shorewood and City Council Members, My name is Dave Moe and I am a Shorewood resident. I am looking for a right of way variance to build on my lot located at 20920 Forest Drive. This lot was platted before the current regulations. The lot is narrow and tapers to the east and resides at a dead end. There is an extraordinary right of way, with an extra 5ft on each side of Forest Drive. Due to the narrowness of the lot I cannot build without this variance. The current dwelling at this location was built in 1938 and it is cost prohibitive to restore. I would appreciate your vote for this variance thank you for your consideration. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns, Sincerely, Dave Moe 20920 Forest Drive 763 - 250 -0437 Exhibit E APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council. FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 14 July 2016 RE: Valvoline Instant Oil Change — Conditional Use Permit FILE NO.: 405 (16.15) BACKGROUND KK Design, representing I the owners of Valvoline Instant Oil Change, located at 19465 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached), has submitted plans for an addition to the existing building. As described in John Kosmas' letter, dated 7 June 2016 (Exhibit B), the proposed addition will be located on the east side of the building and will be used for indoor storage of new and used oil, which currently occurs in the lower level of the building.. The property exists under a conditional use permit that was approved in May of 1984. . The addition is also subject to the CUP process, for which a public hearing has been scheduled for 19 July. The property in question is zoned C -1, General Commercial, which includes "auto repair — minor" as a conditional use. The existing property contains 20,073 square feet of area. The existing building is one story in height with 1491 square feet of floor area. The proposed addition is also one story (three feet shorter than the existing) and adds 519 square feet for a total of 2010 square feet of floor area. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: West: self- storage facility; zoned R -C, Residential - Commercial North: State Highway 7, then commercial in Deephaven; zoned commercial East: park and ride lot South: single- family residential; zoned R -1C, Single - Family Residential ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Following is how the applicant's request complies with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code: Memorandum Re: Valvoline Instant Oil Change CUP 14 July 2016 A. Land Use. As mentioned, the existing and proposed use of the property is listed as a conditional use, the requirements of which are provided in Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.d. of the City Code: 1. Only oil is being sold /dispensed. No motor fuel sales take place on the site. Nevertheless, approval of the CUP should be subject to review and approval by the Excelsior Fire District.. 2. The architecture of the proposed addition is consistent with the existing structure. 3. The site is covered (landscaping and pavement) to control dust and drainage. 4. Drainage will remain unchanged. The proposed addition uses space that is already, predominantly impervious. 5. The parking lot has perimeter curbing. 6. Site lighting will not be changed. 7. No fuel pumps are proposed. 8. The southerly 23 feet of the site is landscaped (grass and trees) abutting the residential properties to the south. 9. Existing vegetation on the south side of the property provides screening for homes to the south. 10. Parking screening — see 9. above. 11. No change in signage is proposed. 12. All service work is contained within the building. In over 30 years, we have not received complaints regarding noise on the site. 13 The only outdoor storage is the dumpster, which is fenced in consistent with City Code. B. Building Setbacks. When first approved, the property was granted a setback variance. The new addition complies with all current setback requirements in the C -1 zoning district. In fact, the applicant has designed the addition so as to conform with the irregularly shaped property. C. Building Height. The C -1 District allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height. As shown on Exhibit E, the proposed addition is one story, just under 11 feet in height. -2- Memorandum Re: Valvoline Instant Oil Change CUP 14 July 2016 D. Parking. The Zoning Code requires nine parking spaces for the subject site /use. There are 10 existing spaces on the property. E. Building Construction. The building and the proposed addition are consistent with Shorewood's construction requirements for commercial building. F. Landscaping. Existing landscaping on the property is considered adequate and will remain unchanged. Subject to the recommendations contained herein, it is recommended that the applicant's plans be approved, subject to review and approval of the plans by the Excelsior Fire District. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Joe Pazandak John Kosmas -3- fi fi r r _ owl b XNA19ft pm.016SWIMM-Affill ME -1 Ilk T �lC T T sue It/ IS Z T t T S� m i ,A}aadoad� , ai uiad ��afgng _ P� C� r OOZ`6 009 000 0 y 11 � N Y fi T fi r fi fi fi fi T fi fi r T T T T fi r fi fi fi fi T fi fi fi fi r r _ owl b XNA19ft pm.016SWIMM-Affill ME -1 Ilk T �lC T T sue It/ IS Z T t T S� m i ,A}aadoad� , ai uiad ��afgng _ P� C� r OOZ`6 009 000 0 y 11 � N Y fi T fi r fi fi fi T fi fi r T T 3AVI S`dIAL SINHO fi r T / ` fi 4/ q, J 0 fi CAD `G fi fi fi T T fi fi T r T T ?� T fi T Y` 1 PROM ME NOW" KK DESIGN 6112 EXCELSIOR BLVD - MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 952.922.3226 June 7, 2016 City of Shorewood Brad Nielson, Planning Director Planning Commission and City Council RE: Conditional Use Permit Modification Valvoline Instant Oil Change 19465 Highway No. 7 Shorewood, MN. DIVISION OF PCAD CORPORATION The attached material is presented to allow the expansion of the building located at 19465 Highway No. 7, Valvoline Instant Oil Change, currently zoned C -1 and operating under a Conditional Use Permit approved on May 29, 1984. The proposed addtion will be utilized for on site storage. The proposed addition meets the current setback of: 30' Front Yard, 15' Side Yard and 50' Rear Yard. The existing building will remain as currently constructed, no changes prosed. The existing building is: 1,491 sf. The proposed addition is: 519 sf. Total: 2,010 sf. The proposed addition will be constructed three (3) feet lower then the existing structure. The exterior materials will be of similar materials as the existing building. The existing parking will remain as currently located. The trash enclosure will be relocated to the west side of the westerly parking area (see site plan). Drawings prepared by: Survey by: Rehder & Associates Architectural drawings by: K K Design Attachments included: Zoning / Subdivision Application, dated 6 -5 -16 Application fee payment of $500.00: Check No Mailing labels per Hennipen Co. Survey and Architectural drawings. Legal description. Thank you, . � e -- = &: 5 � W John Kosmas Y /k KK Design 11500083 (Ashland Inc.) Exhibit B APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER E. 0 Lo 0 z w SUITE 240 w Q EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 612- 452 -5051 DATED: 4/23/2007 Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN 12'14 9/1'6' zzLo 3f '' HIGHWAY NO. 7 Ld 0Ln 14' -0„ _ z m Z Q c� 30' -0" BLDG. SETBACK _ _ _ o Q FRONTAGE- ROAD - - - - -- - - - - - -� m - /' Q LiJ Q cN - ' — Wrnc,I Ld X Q VI RELOCATE r w - _ - = C' . O IJ�N Wr 4 CO CO E. TRANS. N64 °02'00 "E 108.43 PROPERTY LINE HYD. +e+ v BULK OIL -0 - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - - — - _ z SPLIT TANKS m I Q ENTRY c �} EXIT ° n EXISTING DRIVEWAY - - SIDEWAL , - - / 0) Q _ / V , / EXIST. SIGN SP 1 A KS i EXISTING BUILDING WAITING AREA , <v Z N7 BLDG. SETBACK _�— ° LQ (:-z ��/ 27-0 k w-0 't 0 0 Lo 0 z w SUITE 240 w Q EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 612- 452 -5051 DATED: 4/23/2007 Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN 12'14 9/1'6' 3f '' Ld 14' -0„ Z 30' -0" BLDG. SETBACK _ _ _ o Q USE OIL - /' Q O - ' Q VI RELOCATE r 350 8 - _ - - - EXISTING ADJACENT PARKING LOT O O 21 E. DUMPST I Wr pi v BULK OIL -0 < z SPLIT TANKS m I Q ENTRY c �} , - - / 0) Q _ V , / SP 1 A KS Z N7 BLDG. SETBACK _�— ° LQ (:-z ��/ 27-0 k w-0 't 0 ooi '� SIT I��� Ld W �; aENTRANCE / STACKING 20' - 0„ NORTH ' � _ Of RELOCATED LANE , 6' -6 "x18' -0,. O � CHAIN LINK 0 20 40 60 > DUMPSTER / ENCLOSURE NEW CONC. ' � Q oph /, SLAB SCALE IN FEET > THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS RANS VDERIFYNAND A B ADJUST DRAWING SIZE AS NECESSARY TO BE SCALE L------ - - CV Y c� a J co w 0 - - -- -- - - - - -- - cn o N66 °00'30 "E 183.81 PROPERTY LINE ------- --- - -- -/ SITE DATA TAKEN FROM: o � w > SURVEY BY: o o m REHDER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. z w i CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS z CD z N 3440 FEDERAL DRIVE o cn Q W 0 Lo 0 z w SUITE 240 w Q EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122 612- 452 -5051 DATED: 4/23/2007 Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN —x�an t LU L 4,: :w tq - f, $ �OO �F ♦A a�6`29 . oy B9p�. Ropdy Menuft u n Na. 25 -1I7 -73-44 -0060 x Oocsmiml No. 5390026. SETBACKS ?6.. - LEGEND 0 feet I / I • Iron Monument Found a o Iran Monument Set —s— Sanitary Sewer 0 feet 1 —sr —Storm Sewer 15 feet Rear — w— Waterrnain Ir 5 feet ttrd.,G Hydrant - a • Gate Valve UHQ Manhole - CBO Catch Basin - Ira. Invert Elevation - - - -� -- -- - - -_ -- • Guard Post s+ Sign - aw- Gas Meter ca• Curb Stop PP-0- Power Pole. tpi� Light Pole . El Electri cal Transformer To Telephone Pedestal - =Concrete Surface Bituminous Surface —G —Buried Gae _T_ Buried Telephone —E— Buried Electric S Top of Curb Elevation ) Y Y Tree SB1 9°96.6 - Tree x 7 Y Napb 102 / tree 984 12' Ash -A / i / e 11 •Ti- e M. .X /O zD ' A16 -// C �/o�prty Y17- 2 3- N �0624- x5N- o 76737 Y.6 mt N. ta74a �r No. 25 -1 &3999 25 rrss�1 Gf,T Na. 21 7Nlggg� / i t< gi Lli �✓„ i //5o�6g4 ON / ga / Nq. R /4OC / / pE ) �FILE6 q53 , l \ 996.5 I , LnI i I I Nartheost comer M the saatlwaat C-dw, W Section 25, Township 117, Ran 23 (Irw,epin Count'. real lean Y ge anarmnt) 12-C I LAJ - - - - - 0 s L / JI f of �� of 01 l35eP a f / I �, ee�� SIP Ci TRACT A �' � $. RL24 I I 66.4-5 pOakt 01 ff TPA CZ C e 26 sl n3o'a E Zvi- i 15 14// i r. I �i6l.fi tnk. 167.(10 plot I sit N R � NLLS b: MM — ' sno 1 - .00 rest r NOTE: Property lines shown were established based on - �. ` found monuments in the plat of SHADY HILLS. I No work has been done to resurvey the plot I of SHADY HMS. southeast comer of we SeWheml Worter _ I Section 25, Tow"We 117, Ro ge 27 ahowivin. county Coal bon kroiwm 0 UIXITY STATEMENT The underground utilities shown have been located from field survey information and existing drawings. The surveyor makes no guarantee that the underground utilities shown comprise all such utilities in the area, either in service or abandoned. The surveyor further does not warrant that the underground utilities shown are in the exact location indicated although- he does certify that they are located as accurately as possible from information available. The surveyor has not physically located the underground utilities. ee AS —BUILT SURVEY for. VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE, A DMSION OF ASHLAND OIL, INC. State of Minnesota - County of - Hennepin City of Shorewood NOTES - -- - - -- - -- .ct t c he -S-.t - st .:dc; lcr of :scBor, 25, Toer "j 117 R „ .d 1 h a bearing of NORTH. s • Utilities shown are from information fumished by the City of Shorewood, -Xcel Energy, Rermnf Energy and Owest in response to Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 70061726 and ore wri6ed where possible. AN other companies faded to respond • Conlacf Gopher State One Coll far utility lomtions before any construction begins. Phone: 600- 252 -1166. • Bench Mork: Top of hydrant 70 feel southwest of northeast properly comer an north property line. Ehwotim 991.62 feet (N.G. V.D.-1929). • Area = 20,073 square feet (0:461 erne). • 2oning: C -3 (General Commercial). . Height Restrictions: 3 stories or 40 feet (whichever is less). • Bulk Restrictions: None. Setback and development standards ware approved by Res"an Mo. 29A -84 as adopted by the City Council of Shorewood doled May 29, 1954. Said Resolution granted o variance for the rear setback of the parking lot. • Tits property is located in Flood Zone X (areas determined to be outside of the 0.2x anninif ban. floodplain) par Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 27053003171; with an ef,'.U- date of September 2nd, 2004. • Zoning and flood one information obtained from the City of Shorewood Planning Department. • There is no observable evidence or cemelaries or undisclosed significant observations. • Government Agent' Requirements are not addressed an this survey. • The plot of AUfXTOR'5 SUODMSION NUMBER 141 was recorded in Bank 105 of Plats, Page i on July 27, 1915. • Street address: 19465 highway 7. • The easements shown hereon were taken from LondNnerioo Commonwealth TNo kisurimm Commitment No. 215161, with an effective date of March 151h, 2007. } i Vicinity Map Section 25, Township 117, Range 23 No Scale LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those parts of Lots 23, 24 and 25, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred and Forty -one (141), Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 15, Block 1, SHADY HILLS thence Northerly along the extension of the West line of said Lot 15 to the Southery right -of -way line of State Highway No. 7; thence Northeasterly along said Southerly right -of -way - line 'to the Northerly extension of the East line of Lot 14, Block i, SHADY HILLS; thence Southerly along said extension to the Northeasterly comer of said Lot 14; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 14 and 15 to the point of beginning. The undersigned hereby certifies to VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CRINGE, a division of ASHLAND, INC., a Kentucky Corporation, that this plat represents on "As -Built Survey . made in compliance with the As -Built Survey Requirements of said Valvoline Instant Oil Change. Doled this filth day of April 2007. ;7Y CIATES, INC. Dbqid C. Craigie, Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 42618 Revised: - April 191h, 2007 - Address Client Comments April 2Jrd, 2007 - Utility Services Rehder and Exhibit D CIVIL IN 3440 Federal Driy - Suit. 24 EXISTING SURVEY i Jt SETBACKS Building - Front 0 feet Rear 50 feet (new construction) 47 feet (caretaker residence) Side 0 feet Parking Lot Front 15 feet Rear 23 feet Side 5 feet Nartheost comer M the saatlwaat C-dw, W Section 25, Township 117, Ran 23 (Irw,epin Count'. real lean Y ge anarmnt) 12-C I LAJ - - - - - 0 s L / JI f of �� of 01 l35eP a f / I �, ee�� SIP Ci TRACT A �' � $. RL24 I I 66.4-5 pOakt 01 ff TPA CZ C e 26 sl n3o'a E Zvi- i 15 14// i r. I �i6l.fi tnk. 167.(10 plot I sit N R � NLLS b: MM — ' sno 1 - .00 rest r NOTE: Property lines shown were established based on - �. ` found monuments in the plat of SHADY HILLS. I No work has been done to resurvey the plot I of SHADY HMS. southeast comer of we SeWheml Worter _ I Section 25, Tow"We 117, Ro ge 27 ahowivin. county Coal bon kroiwm 0 UIXITY STATEMENT The underground utilities shown have been located from field survey information and existing drawings. The surveyor makes no guarantee that the underground utilities shown comprise all such utilities in the area, either in service or abandoned. The surveyor further does not warrant that the underground utilities shown are in the exact location indicated although- he does certify that they are located as accurately as possible from information available. The surveyor has not physically located the underground utilities. ee AS —BUILT SURVEY for. VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE, A DMSION OF ASHLAND OIL, INC. State of Minnesota - County of - Hennepin City of Shorewood NOTES - -- - - -- - -- .ct t c he -S-.t - st .:dc; lcr of :scBor, 25, Toer "j 117 R „ .d 1 h a bearing of NORTH. s • Utilities shown are from information fumished by the City of Shorewood, -Xcel Energy, Rermnf Energy and Owest in response to Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 70061726 and ore wri6ed where possible. AN other companies faded to respond • Conlacf Gopher State One Coll far utility lomtions before any construction begins. Phone: 600- 252 -1166. • Bench Mork: Top of hydrant 70 feel southwest of northeast properly comer an north property line. Ehwotim 991.62 feet (N.G. V.D.-1929). • Area = 20,073 square feet (0:461 erne). • 2oning: C -3 (General Commercial). . Height Restrictions: 3 stories or 40 feet (whichever is less). • Bulk Restrictions: None. Setback and development standards ware approved by Res"an Mo. 29A -84 as adopted by the City Council of Shorewood doled May 29, 1954. Said Resolution granted o variance for the rear setback of the parking lot. • Tits property is located in Flood Zone X (areas determined to be outside of the 0.2x anninif ban. floodplain) par Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 27053003171; with an ef,'.U- date of September 2nd, 2004. • Zoning and flood one information obtained from the City of Shorewood Planning Department. • There is no observable evidence or cemelaries or undisclosed significant observations. • Government Agent' Requirements are not addressed an this survey. • The plot of AUfXTOR'5 SUODMSION NUMBER 141 was recorded in Bank 105 of Plats, Page i on July 27, 1915. • Street address: 19465 highway 7. • The easements shown hereon were taken from LondNnerioo Commonwealth TNo kisurimm Commitment No. 215161, with an effective date of March 151h, 2007. } i Vicinity Map Section 25, Township 117, Range 23 No Scale LEGAL DESCRIPTION Those parts of Lots 23, 24 and 25, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred and Forty -one (141), Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 15, Block 1, SHADY HILLS thence Northerly along the extension of the West line of said Lot 15 to the Southery right -of -way line of State Highway No. 7; thence Northeasterly along said Southerly right -of -way - line 'to the Northerly extension of the East line of Lot 14, Block i, SHADY HILLS; thence Southerly along said extension to the Northeasterly comer of said Lot 14; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 14 and 15 to the point of beginning. The undersigned hereby certifies to VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CRINGE, a division of ASHLAND, INC., a Kentucky Corporation, that this plat represents on "As -Built Survey . made in compliance with the As -Built Survey Requirements of said Valvoline Instant Oil Change. Doled this filth day of April 2007. ;7Y CIATES, INC. Dbqid C. Craigie, Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 42618 Revised: - April 191h, 2007 - Address Client Comments April 2Jrd, 2007 - Utility Services Rehder and Exhibit D CIVIL IN 3440 Federal Driy - Suit. 24 EXISTING SURVEY i Jt ozc0 zzr- z -Ln z (n Q J n J 7; W m - �U) CN - - - - ww � X N =w� Ln Quern w N0RTrH ELEVATION z J O 8 16 24 O Q F- O Z cn Q I- w �-- Z SCALE IN FEET cf) Q Z THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS _ DRAWING MAY NOT BE TO SCALE. VERIFY AND ADJUST DRAWING SIZE _ AS NECESSARY TO BE AT SCALE U-) 0 (o O w O _ (n O N _ - > � O m Q0 i O Q m z N z 7 O cn. Q Of W0 Q Exhibit E - Z ui PROPOSED FRONT BUILDING ELEVATrOW- MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952 - 474 - 0128 • www.dshorewood.mmus • cityhall &i.shorewood.mmus TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 July 2015 RE: Hamdorf, Chris Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (16.16) BACKGROUND Chris and Amy Hamdorf own the property at 26425 Arbor Creek Lane (see. Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). As described in his request letter, Mr. Hamdorf proposes to build a 12' x 12' garden shed at the rear of the property. The proposed shed requires a 45 -foot setback variance from the rear lot line.. The property in question contains 40,620 square feet of area and is zoned R -lA, Single - family Residential. The property is occupied by an extraordinarily large drainage and utility easement as illustrated on Exhibit C. This drainage easement serves the entire Arbor Creek subdivision as well, as property to the south. The proposed building, the style of which is shown on Exhibit D, is one story (approximately 12 feet) in height and contains 144 square feet of floor area. The applicant proposes to locate the shed in a wooded area at the south end of the site, approximately five feet from the property line. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the granting of variances. As variances go this request is relatively simple. 1. The applicant's "practical difficulty" is largely the result of the extraordinary size of the drainage and utility easement that wraps around the south and east sides of the lot, coupled with the topography of the site. The typical drainage and utility easement is 10 feet. Staff initially suggested the possibility of locating the shed to the west of the existing sport court. Having Memorandum Re: Hamdorf Setback Variance 15 July 2016 walked the site with the applicant we agree that this area is subject to storm water flow, whereas the proposed location of the shed is high and diy. Also, the proposed location of the shed places it much farther from surrounding residences (approximately 30 feet from the back corner of the lot to the east) than if it were located west of the sport court and it is quite concealed by the existing privacy fence on the property and the location of trees in that corner of the site. It is also worth noting that the property to the south of the applicants is the school yard for Minnewashta Elementary School. 2. The applicant's practical difficulty is not economic in nature. 3. Despite the standard one acre size of the subject lot the buildable area of the lot is drastically reduced by the drainage and utility easement. The applicant is unable to use as much of his lot as other similar sized lots in the R -1A district. 4. The special conditions in this case are not the result of actions by the applicant. 5. No special right or privilege is conveyed to the applicant by granting the variance. The drainage and utility easements on the property in effect result in a 50- footsetback or open space on three sides of the property. Even if the variance is granted, the lot provides more open space than a standard lot. 6. The design and location of the proposed building should not adversely impact the surrounding properties or the neighborhood in which it is located. Based on the preceding, the applicant's request for a variance is considered justified in order to make reasonable use of the property. Approval is therefore recommended. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Chris Hamdorf LAKE MINNETONKA Subjec x Property CnL., d cn r� 0 I:� F9 70 RRn IE 00 .11 v u M rb r r t t Subjec x Property CnL., d cn r� 0 I:� F9 70 RRn IE 00 .11 v u M Chris and Amy Hamdorf 26425 Arbor Creek Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 June 7, 2016 City of Shorewood, MN 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Shorewood City Council: We are writing this letter as a request for a zoning variance at our home property of 26425 Arbor Creek Lane in Shorewood, MN. We would like to build a 12'x 12' shed on our property. We would like to locate the shed in the southeast corner of our lot. This location is not at least 50 feet from our property line, so that is why we are requesting the variance. We believe the variance should be grated based on the following facts: • The proposed location is hidden at the back of our property behind a 6' privacy fence and not in plain sight of any other neighboring houses • The proposed location is not in a drainage and utility easement • Based on the extreme amount of draining and utility easement in our back yard, the only other possible location for the proposed shed would be to locate it immediately behind the basketball hoop of our sport court. This location is the wettest location of our back yard and always has standing water after any significant rainfall or snow melt. This location is also in plain view for the neighbor's house and would not allow us to hide the shed like the proposed location. • The proposed location does not alter the essential character of the area We are submitting our formal Zoning /Subdivision Application with this letter on 6/7/16 along with $400 for the application fee and escrow. We are also submitting a property survey, several copies of an As- Built drawing of our property and a picture and description of the proposed shed. We are also including an envelope with mailing list of property owners within 500 feet of our property, which was obtained from the Hennepin County Property Description Department. Sincerely, Chris and Amy Hamdorf Exhibit B APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER r� w Lu 1C► 1 Q 1= F � - I ❑ L'z) Lij i W I ME A d b� C" d z CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 Phone: (952) 960 -7900 • FAX: (952) 474 -0128 • Email: planning @ci.shorewood.mn.us PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO. BACKGROUND Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 28 April 2016 Benjamin, John — Request for Rezoning from R -2A to C -I 405 (16.06) Mr. John Benjamin has arranged to purchase the property at 24250 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). He has requested that the property be rezoned from R -2A, Single- and Two - Family Residential to C -1, General Commercial. The property contains 1.59 acres and is currently occupied by a single - family residence (see Survey — Exhibit B, attached). Land use and zoning surrounding the subject property are as follow: North: Shorewood Public Works Department; zoned R -2A East: South Lake Public Safety Building (Police and Fire); zoned R -2A South: Auto repair and self -serve car wash; zoned C -1 West: Candy store, in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial As noted in the applicant's project narrative (Exhibit C), the property is characterized by a rather significant change in grade — as much as 18 feet. Access to the site is located at its southeast corner where the existing driveway to the home opens onto the private driveway owned by the City and which serves the Public Works Department site and the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Building. There is some question as to the arrangements for this access onto the City's driveway. Initial discussions with the applicant's consultant were based on the future construction of an office building on the site, which is illustrated in the applicant's project narrative (Exhibit C). The site sketch provided illustrates how a single -story office building containing approximately 12,880 square feet of floor area, and its associated parking might fit on the site. More recently, the applicant has indicated that he is considering proposing a motel/hotel facility for the property. Memorandum Re: Benjamin Rezoning 28 April 2016 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Comprehensive Plan. Section 1201.04 Subd. l .d. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth the considerations to be used by the Planning Commission in evaluating requests for amendments to the Code — in this case, a change in the zoning district. Perhaps the most significant consideration is consistency with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Staff met with the applicant's consultant prior to it malting an application for the rezoning. The consultant was directed at that time to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, which had been adopted previously into the Comprehensive Plan as effectively the area plan for the vicinity in which the site is located. Specific to the subject site, the Study recommends as follows: "The single family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by commercial dei,elopment in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public ii�orks, police and fire). The City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R -C, Residential / Commercial. " The applicant subsequently chose to apply for C -1, General Commercial zoning, presumably for its considerably greater latitude in land use choices, its less restrictive zoning standards (e.g. setbacks, height, etc.) and its less restrictive regulations (e.g. hours of operation). In light of the applicant's most recent idea for a motel facility, the C -1 district would be his only way to achieve that use of the land. Motels are not allowed in the R -C district. B. Site Plan. The site plan submitted with the rezoning request is simply intended to illustrate how the proposed use of the property might fit. The plan suggests using the existing driveway which is located quite close to County Road 19. This location may present issues with respect to stacking on the City's access drive. The applicant indicates that he is exploring what, if any, access easement rights the subject property may have over the City's property. The plan illustrated in Exhibit C appears to maximize the site, even using C -1 setback requirements. Notably missing is any kind of storm water ponding that may be necessary to control drainage on the property. C. Traffic. Based on the Smithtown Crossing recommendation to consider R -C zoning in place of the current single - family residential use, it is reasonable to expect some increase in the number of trips generated by the new use of the site. It is interesting to note in the applicant's narrative the difference in trips between general office and medical office. It should also be noted that the trip generation table provided on page 2 of the narrative uses an office building with 18,260 square feet versus the 12,880 square feet illustrated on his site plan. RECOMMENDATION There are enough open ended issues related to this request to warrant additional study. Above all, however, is the fact that the C -1 zoning is not consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. As such approval of the zoning request is not recommended. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Lany Brown Paul Hornby John Benjamin Brad Scheib -2- Wpm �z Cn 1+ r --1 ru �U U Subject Prooert N Ri int 0 250 500 1,000 it TT Feet "e� O � L II 0 30 60 90 SCALE IN FEET • FOUND IRON MONUMENT O SET IRON MONUMENT MARKED WITH LICENSE NUMBER 22033 W.0 CATCH BASIN 0 GATE VALVE O SPRINKLER BOX ED AIR CONDITIONER M ELECTRIC BOX 1j UTILITY POLE (--- GUY WIRE (D TELEPHONE MANHOLE © COMMUNICATION BOX 0 GAS METER SIGN WALL — x —X —X— YORE FENCE — o —o —o— WOOD FENCE —I— ELECTRIC —wn OVERHEAD WIRES T UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE c UNDERGROUND CABLE c UNDERGROUND GAS !1'YWYYWI TREEUNE nvzs SPOT ELEVATION ,_992-' EXISTING CONTOUR LINE y . CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE D GRAVEL SURFACE PAVER SURFACE FIELD BOOK PAGE FIELDV 2786 50 CHIEF: F.M. DRAWI DRAWING NAME: kgf 36653— TOPO.dwa CHECH JOB NO. 36653 BY: FILE NO. 610 IL.J.N. i ( L7 PR--PER—.,- R 2 (^ ..,,.,._ ',..J RESwcnn N :NO 19 GOUHr aU HIGHWA 191NP�r 57 STA -i REVISIONS Exhibit B DESCRIPTION BOUNDAR SURVEY SUEY V TOPOGRAPHII Benjamin Rezoning °t Smithtown Crossing Parcel Rezoning Project Narrative - 24250 Smithtown Rd Introduction The applicant John Benjamin is representing Bonnie Witrak for this project. John Benjamin, as nominee for Bonnie Witrak, has entered into a contract to purchase the property at 24250 subject to receiving the necessary entitlements to construct an office building on the property. The applicant has retained the assistance of professional service firms including planning and landscape architecture (Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.), architecture (RSP Architects), municipal /civil engineering (BKBM), and traffic /transportation planning (Wenck Associates). Requested Action The applicant is seeking a rezoning of 24250 Smithtown Road from R -2A, Single /Two Family to C -1, General Commercial to allow for general office, medical office, or other uses as permitted in the C -1 General Commercial district. Site Context The approximately 1.59 acre site is located on the north side of Smithtown Road (County Road 19) and boarded to the north by the Shorewood Public Works Facility, to the east by the South Lake Public Safety Building and to the west by commercial development in Tonka Bay. The site is currently occupied by a single - family home. The site sits up on a hill /null with approximately 18 feet of grade change. Access to the site is provided by a driveway onto a private drive serving the city Public Works facility. The applicant is doing title work to research any existing easement or shared driveway agreement. Access to the site will likely remain in this general configuration in order to minimize additional access points onto Smithtown Road (CR 19). Additional detail on the natural resources and infrastructure availability to the site will be determined at time of a more detailed site plan approval. Analysis The property is guided commercial in the Comprehensive Plan as a result of adoption of the recommendations contained in the 2012 Smithtown Crossing Study (Resolution 12 -067). The requested rezoning from R -2A to C -1 will bring the property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan (Smithtown Crossing Study) notes that this area is ready for redevelopment. The conversion of this property from residential to commercial achieves the Comprehensive Plan intent of transforming non - conforming residential uses to complementary commercial uses so that a cohesive, compact activity center can be created in this general location. Exhibit C 24250 Smithtown Road — Rezoning Project Narrative — 5 April 2016 PROJECT NARRATIVE Further direction on the vision for the area can be found in the 2012 Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. The study noted that this area is the northern gateway to the community. Development in this area was determined to be disjointed and containing a number of underutilized properties. Redevelopment is sought to make better use of land, enhance the tax base, grow jobs, and reflect the character of the community. The study envisioned that retail and office in this area would be an appropriate transition between the higher intensity commercial adjacent in Tonka Bay and the surrounding lower density housing. Other than the existing single - family homes retaining their residential zoning, all of the other properties in the study area were recommended to be rezoned to C -1, General Commercial. Rezoning of this property to C -1, General Commercial will be in keeping with the commercial intent for this area and will be appropriate given that the Tonka Bay sites to the west are zoned C -2, General Commercial and both the public works facility to the north and public safety facility to the east are of a commercial nature in use. Current projected uses forthe site are anticipated to be office or medical office related uses. These uses are consistent with the guiding principles outlined in the Smithtown Crossing Study the purpose of the C -1, General Commercial. The site is located on a minor arterial, Smithtown Road /County Road 19. As a minor arterial, this road is designed to accommodate a higher volume of traffic consistent with the proposed use. The attached concept site plan was prepared by RSP Architects to demonstrate the feasibility of developing the site for an office related use and was developed using the development standards of the C -1, General Commercial District. The exact end use has not been determined; however, a general office or medical office use is envisioned for the property. An estimate of vehicle trips generated on the site was made usin the Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The following is a summary of the potential trip characteristic based on the assumptions made for the attached concept. Table 1: Weekda Trip Generation for Existing and Proposed Land Uses Previous Use In Out Total In Out Total Single - Family 1 d.u. 0 1 1 1 0 1 Detached Housing Proposed Use In Out Total In Out Total Total Option A: 18,260 sf 25 3 28 5 22 27 201 General Office Total Added Trips 25 2 27 4 22 26 191 Option A Option B: 18,260 sf 34 10 44 18 47 65 660 Medical Dental Office Total Added Trips 34 9 43 17 47 64 650 Option 6 sf =square feet; d.u. = dwelling unit 2 Page 24250 Smithtown Road — Rezoning Project Narrative — 5 April 2016 Upon rezoning the site, a more detailed site plan and building plans (including elevations) will be prepared to facilitate required development approvals for the site. This site plan will be prepared following the appropriate zoning standards and the redevelopment guiding principles as outlined in the Smithtown Crossing Study. The applicant has completed a market study for the property as part of evaluating the project feasibility and potential end uses. The market study supports the development of the site for general office or medical office purposes as well as other uses supported by the C -1 General Commercial District. 31 Page 24250 Smithtown Road — Rezoning Project Narrative — 5 April 2016 x I =41 311 rD z 0 41 1174- > LA 7 PH umolql!ws osztZ 2 �T:7 ^--\`] ol z C, O O O CD 0 Cz ICI - 1 E � r�- k Him r�- k Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. May 26, 2016 Brad Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nielsen, The following supplemental materials is being submitted on behalf of our client, Bonnie Witrak, and her nominee/representative John Benjamin regarding the request to rezone 24250 Smithtown Road from its current R2A zoning to the C-1 General Commercial zoning. This letter supplements the original materials submitted on April 5, 2016 and is in preparation for the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 7, 2016. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The 28 April staff report highlights the importance of the reque comprehensive plan. There are a number of key points we wish to highlight relative to comprehensive plan consistency: 1.The Smithtown Crossing Study dated June 2012 and prepared by the City was amended to the Comprehensive Plan by resolution no. 12-067. 2.The Smithtown Crossing Study did not include a traditional land Comprehensive Plan land use map figure: Proposed Land Use Map.The Proposed Land Use Map on file with the City shows the subject parcel as guided Lo to Medium Density Residential. 3.The Smithtown Crossing Study did recognize the parcel at 24250 Smithtown Road as part of the study area. The Land Use and Zoning of this parcel was clearly identified as a Planning Issue. The study recognized that the properties within the study area w with the exception of the parcels that were occupied by resident. The parcels within the study area zoned residential included the subject parcel and two additional par the extreme west end of the study boundary. These two westerly p as Buffer or Transition parcels where a transition is clearlthe existing and proposed land use form from commercial uses to residential uses.In contrast, the subject parcel is not a transitional parcel. The subject parcel is bounded by commercial uses in Tonka Bay to the west; County Road 19 and fronting commercial uses to the south; City Public Works facility to the north; and the South Lake Public Safety Building to the east. Given the adjacent land uses are more industrial or commercial in character, it is our interpretation that the subject parcel is not intended to be treated in a similar manner as the residential parcels the west side of the study area. We contend that the intent of the redevelopment study Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1659 (612) 338-0800 Fax: (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com 24250 Smithtown Road Rezoning Request – Supplemental Information 26 May 2016. proposing to guide parcels within the study area to mixed use or commercial land use designations is the correct interpretation for the subject parcel. 4.The Smithtown Crossing Study states: The City should be open to- C, Residential/Commercial. The purpose of the R-C district is stated in the zoning code as follows: The R-C District is intended for a between commercial and residential uses. More specifically, the R-C District is established to buffer residential uses from adjacent high intensity use areas by permitting residentially co- oriented commercial uses and controlling those uses which can be compatib given adequate control. Given the subject parcel is not adjacent to any residential uses, C-1 zoning is a more applicable and correct zoning designation than the R-C zoning. Furthermore, the language in the Smithtown Crossing Study does not compel the consider R-C zoning for the subject parcel. Given the above points, we believe that the request to rezone to-1 is consistent with the intentions expressed in the Smithtown Crossing Study and thus, the Comprehensive Plan. However, we also recognize that the Proposed Land Use Map has not been updated to Study. Therefore we request that a condition of approval be addehat stipulates that the City update the proposed land use map to reflect the subject parcel as commercial. Site Access As noted in the Staff report dated 28 April 2016, there is some subject parcel. This has been researched by the applicants legal staff and information h to City Staff that documents the permitgranting access to the site. The details of how the site is bes accessed will be a subject of site plan review and approval per on 1201.3 Subd. 17 of the City of Shorewood Zoning Code. Traffic Implications As with any development project, new traffic will be generated. At this stage in the redevelopment process, the actual use has not been determined other than the prospect of an office user or potential hotel use. WSB and Associates is currently conducting a traffic study for the City of Shorewood that encompasses the project area. Information can be learned from this study which to date has not been made available to us. The applicants traffic engineers have looked at the site and the area and provided some general information on traffic generation two story building configuration on the site. As per city policy, detailed traffic analysis will be required as part of the site plan review (City of Shorewood Zoning Code Section 1201.3). The actual development intensity of the site will be based in part on the ability to ads within the area. The applicant is aware traffic improvements may be necessary depending on the selected user, development program, and associated traffic impacts. We request that a full traffic study be required as a of approval for the rezoning request to C1 zoning. 24250 Smithtown Road Rezoning Request – Supplemental Information 26 May 2016. In Summary we are requesting that the City move the following ac Smithtown Road to C-1 General Commercial subject to the following conditions: 1.That the City amend the Proposed Land Use Map to show 24250 as commercial land use designation. 2.That the City and property owner agree on a preferred access arr ingress and egress to the property and that such access be negot approval process. 3.That a detailed traffic study be completed as part of the site plan approval process. Please let me know should you have any questions pertaining to this supplemental information. You can contact me with any questions. I can be reached at brad@hkgi.comor via phone at 612.252.7122. Sincerely, Brad Scheib, AICP Vice President cc: John Benjamin Bonnie Witrak CITY OF SHORE"WOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •`SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 > (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus . cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 8 July 2016 RE: MCES — C.U.P. for Lift Station Facility (Revised) FILE NO.: 405 (15.04) BACKGROUND In late 2015, the City approved a conditional use permit for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), which currently operates a sanitary sewer lift station at 21445 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) to replace its existing lift station facility on the property. The approval was included in City Council Resolution No. 15 -095, a copy of which is attached (Exhibit B): Since December, two issues have arisen: 1) it was discovered that the City does not have clear title to convey the property to MCES; and 2) Excelsior has determined that it does not have the capacity in its water system to extend a water main along Third Avenue. Consequently, VICES has initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire the site. With respect to water service, Excelsior has agreed to allow MCES to extend a single service to its new facility. With these changes MCES has asked that the City amend its resolution to reflect the current circumstances. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION While the revised application is viewed as somewhat of a "housekeeping measure" it is important that a revised resolution (Exhibit C, attached) address the issues raised in the previous approval. Specifically, the following: ®21 0 ®016 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: MCES C.U.P. (Revised) 8 July 2016 A. MCES shall acquire the entire parcel through an eminent domain proceeding, deeding back to the City a conservation easement over the wetland portion of the property and drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer. B. Water service to the site may be extended to the new facility from Excelsior's water system to the east. C. The proposed service extension shall be bored underground so as to preserve the wooded area on the easterly portion of the property. D. MCES shall reconstruct the Christmas Lake storm water outlet that extends through the property. E. MCES shall restore the wetland area disturbed by its construction activities. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Paul Hornby Larry Brown Bryce Pickait Dan Fick -2- CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 15 -095 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MCES TO REPLACE AN EXISTING LIFT STATION IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE STATE HIGHWAY 7 /CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD INTERSECTION WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (the City) is the owner of real property (the Property) located at 21445 State Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) currently operates a sanitary sewer lift station located on a permanent easement on the Property, and wishes to replace the existing above - ground facility with a below - ground lift station and small building for controls and a lavatory; and WHEREAS, MCES has requested that the City convey a larger easement or fee title to a portion of the Property to MCES for the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, "governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures" are allowed by conditional use permit in residential zoning districts and MCES has applied for a conditional use permit to replace the existing lift station; and WHEREAS, MCES' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 2 April 2015, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, MCES' request was reviewed by the City Engineer, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Director, dated 26 March 2015, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 7 April 2015, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, MCES' request for a conditional use permit was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 27 April 2015 and again at its meeting on 14 December 2015, at which time the Planner's memorandum, the City Engineer's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: Exhibit B PREVIOUS RESOLUTION (NO. 15-095) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Property is located in an R -lA /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district and contains approximately 2.9 acres of land. 2. MCES' plans include the construction of a new below - ground lift station with a small building for controls and lavatory. 3. The Property was acquired by the City through tax forfeiture and has been used by the City to upgrade the intersection of Christmas Lake Road and State Highway 7 and for drainage purposes. 4. The City has determined that it will convey the entire parcel to MCES, receiving, in return, a conservation easement over the wetland area, and drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the MCES'request for a conditional use permit for a new lift station facility subject to the recommendations included in the Planning Director's and City Engineer's memoranda, on file at City Hall and to the following: A. MCES will extend the Excelsior water main located to the west of the Property, up to the intersection of Christmas Lake Road and Third Avenue. B. MCES shall reconstruct the Christmas lake stolen water outlet that extends through the property. C. MCES shall restore the wetland area disturbed by its construction activities. D. The City shall prepare the necessary deed documents for conveyance of the Property to MCES pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of December 2015. ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk -2- Scott Zerby, Mayor Legal Description of Property (Abstract property) Lot 145, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 120, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the land condemned in favor of the State of Minnesota as evidenced by Final Certificate filed May 14, 1998 as Document No. 687195 as described as Parcel 216B as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27 -66 filed September 26, 1996 as Document No. 6639079, Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premises condemned in favor of the Metropolitan Sewer Board as evidenced by Order filed April 6, 1973 as Document No. 4008351, Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premisis condemned in favor of the State of Minnesota as evidenced by Judgment and Decree filed March 7, 1936 as Document No. 1830472, Exhibit A -3- CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MCES TO REPLACE AND EXISTING LIFT STATION IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE STATE HIGHWAY 7 /CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD INTERSECTION WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (the City) is the owner of real property (the Property) located at 21445 State Highway 7 in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) currently operates a sanitary sewer lift station located on a permanent easement on the Property, and wishes to replace the existing above - ground facility with a below - ground lift station and small building for controls and a lavatory; and WHEREAS, MCES has requested that the City convey a larger easement or fee title to a portion of the Property to MCES for the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, "governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures" are allowed by conditional use permit in residential zoning districts and MCES has applied for a conditional use permit to replace the existing lift station; and WHEREAS, MCES' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 6 July 2016, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, MCES' request was reviewed by the City Engineer, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Director, dated 26 March 2015, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 19 July 2016, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, MCES' request for a conditional use permit was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 25 July 2016, at which time the Planner's memorandum, the City Engineer's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. Exhibit C NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Property is located in an R -lA /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district and contains approximately 2.9 acres of land. 2. MCES' plans include the construction of a new below - ground lift station with a small building for controls and lavatory. 3. The Property was acquired by the City through tax forfeiture and has been used by the City to upgrade the intersection of Christmas Lake Road and State Highway 7 and for drainage purposes. 4. The City has determined that it will not contest the condemnation of the property, provided MCES conveys a conservation easement over the wetland area, and drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the MCES'request for a conditional use permit for a new lift station facility subject to the recommendations included in the Planning Director's and City Engineer's memoranda, on file at City Hall and to the following: A. MCES shall acquire the entire parcel through an eminent domain proceeding, deeding back to the City a conservation easement over the wetland portion of the property and drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer. B. Water service to the site may be extended to the new facility from Excelsior's water system to the east. C. The proposed service extension shall be bored underground so as to preserve the wooded area on the easterly portion of the property. D. MCES shall reconstruct the Christmas Lake storm water outlet that extends through the property. E. MCES shall restore the wetland area disturbed by its construction activities. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of July 2016. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Legal Description of Property (Abstract property) Lot 145, AUDITOR'SSUBDIVISION NUMBER 120, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the land condemned in favor of the State of Minnesota as evidenced by Final Certificate filed May 14, 1998 as Document No. 687195 as described as Parcel 2166 as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27 -66 filed September 26, 1996 as Document No. 6639079, Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premises condemned in favor of the Metropolitan Sewer Board as evidenced by Order filed April 6, 1973 as Document No. 4008351, Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premisis condemned in favor of the State of Minnesota as evidenced by Judgment and Decree filed March 7, 1936 as Document No. 1830472. Exhibit A MEMORANDUM CITY OF HOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us o cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 12 July 2016 RE: Lehman, Peter and Marie - Request for Separate Action on Rezoning FILE NO. 405 (16.04) In April of this year, after considerable discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a minor subdivision/combination, including setback variances for the existing home and garage, for Peter and Marie Lehman at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road. The motion to approve was subject to removal of the existing cottages on the property, two within 60 days and the remaining one within one year. "Bean moved, recommending approval of Peter and Marie Lehman's request for a minor subdivision /combination for the properties located at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road as outlined in the staff report and the materials provided by Peter and Marie Lehman including setback variances for their existing house on the 21265 property subject to the nonconforming cottages being removed consistent with the Planning Commission's 2014 recommendation." Since then, Mr. Lehman has asked that his application not be placed on the City Council agenda, while he and his wife ponder the Planning Commission recommendation. As noted in the attached email message, Mr. Lehman now asks that the Commission vote specifically on his request for rezoning. As recommended in the initial staff report, staff again recommends denial. of the request for rezoning. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Peter Lehman Patti Helgesen From: Peter Lehman [peterlehman @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 2:31 PM To: Brad Nielsen; Patti Helgesen Subject: Planning commission meeting minutes correction from April 19, 2016 and request for follow up mtg. Hi Brad /Patti, After review of the meeting minutes from April 19, 2016 regarding our lot line revision and zoning change, there are a few errors or items that need correction and /or clarification. Item 1: On page 3, paragraph 4 we clearly stated that we had 2 independent requests. Unfortunately after the long discussion and motion on the lot line revision, we (I) neglected to get a recommendation on the zoning change request from the Planning Commission. This was a clear oversight on my part having been distracted by my long presentation and thoughtful discussion. Before meeting with the City Council, I respectfully request that the zoning change request be brought before the Planning Commission on the July 2016 meeting for their recommendation. We are unable to attend the l st Tuesday in June as we'll be traveling. Item 2: On page 4, paragraph 9, there is the following statement: "Mr. Lehman clarified that at this time they are just requesting a lot line revision." If this statement was made, the intent was to focus on the lot line revision first (meaning immediately,now) and then move on to the zoning change request, Item 1 above, for which we still request a formal recommendation by the Planning Commission. Item 3: On page 9, paragraph 7, there is the following incorrect statement: "Chair Davis asked if there are people living the cottages now. Mr. Lehman responded no." During the commissioners' discussion, while I was seated in the chamber, Chair Davis asked us if we are "renting" the cottages now, she did not, to my knowledge ask if they are being'lived in' (to which the answer should be 'yes'). I responded from the floor by saying "they are 'not rented', that would require a permit from the city, but they have been rented in the past and are now in continuous use by ourselves (Peter and Marie Lehman) our children, our extended family and friends." This long winded answer was shortened by the Planning Commissioner seated to Chair Davis' right, with his response to Chair Davis, quote: "the short answer is 'no "' His 'no' response was in the context of weather or not the cottages are being rented, not to the question of are they being lived in. The statement above should be corrected to accurately reflect the discussion. Item �d•�� � �e�orC�is1 ��r.�°��� c.heLlC�a aUd'�o recTar�ir� c��� - Ecv,.c� On page 10 ,paragraph 5 O15 �vri lie v. a d a P g The motion was passed at 4/0 - I'm not sure but aren't there 5 commissioners? did 1 abstain or was this a typo? Thank -you,