Loading...
PC-01-17-12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: Commissioner Arnst APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for January 17, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 6, 2011 Hasek moved, Charbonnet seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2011, as amended in Item 6 to change the name of the item to “DISCUSS LIFE- CYCLE HOUSING”. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT – CHRISTMAS LAKE ESTATES Applicant: Eric Zehnder Location: 6040 Christmas Lake Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a January 23, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated Eric Zehnder, Zehnder Homes, Inc., has arranged to purchase approximately 3.5 acres of land at 6040 Christmas Lake Road. The developer proposes to remove the existing house on the property and plat it into three single-family residential lots. The house is served by a long driveway off of Christmas Lake Road. Nielsen explained the property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential, as is all of the property surrounding it. Approximately the easterly one-third of the site lies within the “S”, Shoreland District. The Shoreland District has a lower hardcover percentage; 25 percent versus 30 percent. The center of the site consists of wetland and the easterly side of the site is relatively open. Two of the proposed lots will front Christmas Lake Road. The westerly lot will be accessed by Christmas Lane. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 2 of 14 With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated all three proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum size requirements for the R-1A zoning district which are 40,000 square feet in area, 120 feet in width and 150 feet in depth. They lots range in size from 40,922 to 66,625 square feet and average 49,687 square feet. All of the lots are buildable. The houses shown on the drawings are for illustrative purposes; they are intended to show how a house would fit on each site. Nielsen explained the wetland / buffer setback exhibit shows a wetland buffer setback on Lot 2 that is less than what the City Code requires. The developer’s consultants have based the buffer and setback on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requirements. The MCWD’s requirements can be less than the City’s depending on the wetland. The City Code does not allow for buffer averaging. The plat must comply with the 35-foot natural buffer and the 15-foot setback from the buffer requirements. Nielsen stated the illustrative style of house shown on Lot 2 probably won’t work. It is a garage forward design and the building is relatively deep. The house on that lot will have to be a little longer and shallower. The developer must also leave enough room at the rear of the house for patios and decks. Lot 1 still has plenty of depth to accommodate a building site. Nielsen explained the proposed plat takes advantage of existing streets. Both Christmas Lane and Christmas Lake Road are substandard with respect to right-of-way (ROW) width. Code requires 50 feet. The ROW on Christmas Lake Road is 49.5 wide and therefore needs only one-half foot of dedication. The ROW on Christmas Lane is only 33 feet wide. Staff suggests that only one-half of the deficiency (8.5 feet) come off of this property. The other half would come off the property to the south of Christmas Lane when/if it is developed further. With regard to grading, Nielsen explained the City Engineer has looked at the plat. The developer has provided a proposed grading plan for the three building sites. It shows elevated home sites, especially for Lots 1 and 2. The proposed house on Lot 3 is located very close to where the current house is located. The grading plan indicates the proposed houses will be walkout designs. Staff is confident that the sites are buildable at minimum with a slab on grade. Staff does not have enough information to determine if walkout designs will be acceptable. The City Engineer has asked for the stormwater calculations for the wetland area and water table information to determine what the low-floor elevation can be. That will not be provided until the final grading plan is submitted with the final plat. The applicant has been asked to submit a cut and fill plan/calculation as part of the final plat submission. If the fill amount exceeds 300 cubic yards total the applicant will have to apply for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for the fill prior to bringing it on to the sites. The applicant intends to bring the fill on to each site as it is developed. They don’t intend to do plat grading in advance. The City Engineer doesn’t have any problem with that provided it complies with the approved grading plan. The driveway for the existing house will eventually be removed and the culvert under the driveway will be replaced by a drainage swale. Rather than do that work as part of the plat, the developer proposes to do it in conjunction with house construction. Nielsen stated the property owner to the south has expressed concern about the potential for water to backup on to their property as a result of this plat. After a preliminary look the City Engineer thinks the water would have to go up six feet to get back to the culvert. The water would likely end up somewhere other than the adjacent property. Staff will know more about that when the stormwater calculations are submitted with the final plat. The removal of the driveway and reconnection of the two wetland basins is viewed as a positive improvement to site drainage. Erosion control will be addressed in conjunction with house construction on the lots. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 3 of 14 Nielsen explained sanitary sewer exists on three sides of the subject property. The existing home is served by a stub on Christmas Lake Road. This will undoubtedly change upon removal of the existing driveway. As part of the final plat, the developer must demonstrate how sewer service will be provided to Lot 3. Prior to release of the final plat the developer must pay local sanitary sewer access charges in the amount of $2400 ($1200 per lot). Credit is allowed for the existing house on the property. Nielsen noted the City does not have municipal water service available to this area. The lots will be served by private wells. Nielsen explained the City’s Code requires the developer to pay $5000 per new lot for park dedication fees. Credit is allowed for the existing house. Therefore, the total park dedication requirement is $10,000. Nielsen noted most of the trees are located along the westerly and northerly boundaries and there are some trees scattered throughout the property. There is no street or utility construction involved with the plat itself. Therefore, no trees will be removed until construction of the houses starts on the lots. He stated Staff recommends preservation and restoration be addressed with individual building permits. Each permit application will show what trees exist on the site, which ones will be protected and which will be removed. Removed trees will have to be replaced according to the City’s preservation and reforestation policy Nielsen also noted that the developer is not proposing street lights. Any such request would have to be made by future property owners. Nielsen stated Staff recommends approval of the Christmas Lake Estates preliminary plat subject to the following conditions. 1. The final grading plan to be submitted with the final plat should include the following. a. Cut and fill calculations indicating how much, if any, fill will be required to be brought in. The developer is hereby advised that any more than 100 cubic yards of material per lot to be imported will require a conditional use permit. b. Storm water runoff calculations must be submitted in order to confirm what type of building design will be allowed and to determine if any type of on-site ponding will be required. It’s unlikely any ponding will be required. c. The wetland buffer and setback should be revised on the preliminary plat and grading plan to reflect Shorewood’s requirements. d. The grading plan should be revised to show an illustrative house plan with less depth, allowing adequate space for decks and patios. e. The final plat should include a provision stating that the existing driveway to Lot 3 will be removed upon construction of a house on Lot 2 or demolition of the house on Lot 3, whichever comes first. 2. The utility plan should indicate how Lot 3 will be served by sanitary sewer. 3. Prior to final plat release, the developer must pay $2400 in local sanitary sewer access charges. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 4 of 14 4. Prior to release of the final plat, the developer must pay $10,000 in park dedication fees. 5. Tree preservation and reforestation will be addressed with individual building permits. Eric Zehnder, President of Zehnder Homes, Inc., stated Director Nielsen summed things up pretty well and that he is willing to answer any questions the Planning Commission has. He explained the houses that will be built on the sites will be mid to upper price point houses. They will be consistent with the houses in the area. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. Lynn Powers, 6075 Brand Circle, stated her and her husband’s property is adjacent to the subject property. She asked what the anticipated value of the new houses will be. Mr. Zehnder stated he anticipates the minimum price (the base price) to be around $600,000. Mr. Zehnder noted he is a custom home builder so it is likely they will sell for more than that. Ms. Powers stated she and her husband don’t think the proposed subdivision will cause more of a problem with stormwater runoff. She noted they currently have a problem between their property and the King’s property. The stormwater flows off of the highway and pools in the driveway and at the bottom of Brand Circle. She stated they don’t want that problem to be exacerbated. She asked if there is any anticipated impact on the water table by the draw down from the three new wells. Director Nielsen clarified there will only be two new wells; there already is one. He explained the question about the impact of new wells on the water table basically comes up with each new plat. There hasn’t been any problem to date because of draw down by new wells. New wells go relatively deep. The only problem there has been is with older, shallower wells independent of whether or not new houses are built. He explained that with regard to the stormwater runoff problem at Brand Circle the subject property drains entirely to the wetland on the property and ultimately to the north. The new sites will also drain to that wetland. Therefore, there shouldn’t be any impact on the property to the west. He stated he will mention the pooling issue on Brand Circle to the City Engineer. Nancy Peterson, 21355 Christmas Lane, stated her and her husband Rodney’s property is located to the south of the subject property. She noted they sent a letter to the City earlier in the day asking a couple of questions. She asked what the proposed three houses with foundations and the three driveways on to the new sites do to the wetland. Director Nielsen responded the only effect this plat will have on the wetland will be to help restore it. He explained the current driveway somewhat dams up the stormwater. When that driveway is removed the stormwater flow will be restored going to the north. The new houses will be 50 feet away from the edge of the wetland. There is a 35-foot buffer plus a 15-foot setback. Once the old driveway is removed there will be a large drainage swale to help the stormwater flow to the north. Ms. Peterson asked what the value of the new houses will be, and if the new three sites have been sold or are they spec homes. Commissioner Hasek stated Mr. Zehnder stated the base price will start at around $600,000 and no building permits have been issued as of yet. In response to another question from Ms. Peterson, Mr. Zehnder stated that price includes the lot. Mr. Zehnder explained the priced of the lots are anticipated to cost $175,000 – $225,000. He noted if none of the lots are sold right away the plan is to build one spec house on Lot 1 and hopefully pre sell the other two. Ms. Peterson stated there is quite a slope going down from the road to the wetland. She asked how much fill will be put in there and what kind will it be. Mr. Zehnder responded the final grading plan has not CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 5 of 14 been developed yet. Mr. Zehnder noted he hires an engineering firm to develop the final grading plan for him. He noted the soils will be consistent with what is on the property. David Pemberton, a land surveyor with Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. (an engineering and land surveyor firm Mr. Zehnder has contracted with), explained the preliminary grading plan indicates on Lot 1 a garage floor elevation of 962 and the current elevation out at the street is 965. Ms. Peterson commented that the garage is close to the road. Mr. Pemberton explained if the houses are allowed to be a walkout design the basement floor will be at 953.66. The wetland elevation out in the back yard is about 951.5. Mr. Pemberton then explained the amount of fill required for each new site will vary based on the size of the house and basement (how much is taken out to put the footings in). He also explained the drainage will flow around the house and down to the wetland following a pattern similar to what occurs today with the exception it will flow around the house. Director Nielsen stated he spoke with Bob Molstad, an engineer with Sathre-Bergquist, the previous week who indicated the intent is to balance the cut and fill on the properties to the extent possible. He commented that is always a developer’s intent. The plan is to take the material that is excavated for the foundations and use it to fill around the house and achieve the grades Mr. Pemberton spoke of. If the excavated material isn’t sufficient to accomplish that some additional fill may have to be brought in. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the 100 cubic yards of fill per lot referenced earlier is imported material. Mr. Peterson asked if there is a guarantee that there will be no change in the drainage from the three new houses on to her property. Director Nielsen responded the City will not guarantee that. It will guarantee the City Engineer will look at the design criterion a developer is charged with accommodating to make sure the plat is designed to that standard which is two back-to-back 100-year storms. He noted if a 500- year storm comes along there will be a change in the stormwater flow. Ms. Peterson asked what her and her husband’s recourse would be if there is a change. Director Nielsen stated with an event change (e.g. a 500-year storm) there wouldn’t be any recourse. Ms. Peterson then asked Director Nielsen to explain the reason for taking property on the south side of Christmas Lane for the ROW. Director Nielsen explained when and if her property is developed further (i.e., subdivided) 8.5 feet would be taken for Christmas Lane ROW. Nielsen noted the City’s subdivision requires that. He explained the Peterson’s, or a new owner of their property, would be subject to the same requirements as the Christmas Lake Estates are if the Peterson property were to be subdivided. He also explained if the Peterson property were already subdivided into lots and was not subject to any additional development potential later on the entire ROW deficiency would have been taken off the property on the north side of Christmas Lane (the subject parcel). If the Peterson property is never subdivided the City will never get the remaining 8.5 feet of ROW it wants. Ms. Peterson asked to see a copy of the City Ordinance relating to this. Nielsen noted it is Subdivision 1202 in the City Code. Rodney Peterson, 21355 Christmas Lane, stated he and his wife have discussed this quite thoroughly. He asked if a proposed driveway will encroach into the wetland area. Chair Geng stated the proposed driveway does encroach on the wetland setback. Director Nielsen explained the City Ordinance does allow encroachment into the wetland setback by driveways where it is necessary. But, Staff doesn’t think that is necessary in this case and recommends the driveway be moved out of the 15-foot wide setback. Doing that will affect one tree located approximately midway up the driveway. The question becomes wetland setback or tree and Staff recommends planting a reforestation tree or two rather than encroaching into the wetland setback. Mr. Peterson asked if there is room to move the driveway out. Nielsen CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 6 of 14 responded there is. Mr. Peterson asked how far the driveway needs to be from the property line. Nielsen responded five feet. Mr. Peterson asked how the stormwater is going to drain and not come on to their property when the elevation level on the new lot is increased. Chair Geng clarified that Mr. Peterson’s is talking about the western boundary of the proposed Lot 3 and the construction of the driveway from Christmas Lane north to the proposed building site on Lot 3. Geng explained the water currently naturally flows from west to east to the wetland and Mr. Peterson is concerned that the proposed north/south driveway on Lot 3 may somehow change that natural drainage pattern. It was clarified the elevation of the area where the new driveway will go is not going to be raised. Mr. Peterson suggested the area for the driveway be raised somewhat because it currently gets pretty wet in that area. Ms. Peterson asked if this has already been decided. Chair Geng explained this evening the Planning Commission is considering an application for a preliminary plat for the redevelopment of the property located at 6040 Christmas Lake Road. He noted that the Planning Commission is just an advisory board. It only makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will consider this matter at its January 23, 2012, meeting. Council will decide whether or not to approve the preliminary plat. Mark Themig, 21780 Lilac Lane, stated he does not own an adjacent property but he does live in the neighborhood. He noted he walks around the neighborhood quite a bit. He stated he thought the developer’s plans to build upscale homes fits well with the neighborhood. He commented that he hopes the apple trees are saved. He explained that he tried to do a project in the City two years ago and he had to request variances to make some things happen. Unfortunately, the City was adamant about following its rules and guidelines. Based on his experience, he believes the Planning Commission will ensure the developer doesn’t inadvertently impact the Peterson’s property. And, he also believes the developer will do the right thing based on what he heard this evening. He stated he thought what is proposed will be a great addition to the neighborhood and raise the tax base. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M. Commissioner Davis asked the surveyor (Mr. Pemberton) if the contours on the grading plan are survey contours or city topography. Mr. Pemberton responded it’s a combination of both. Davis then asked how far beyond the boundary of the property was surveyed. Mr. Pemberton responded that on the east side all of Mr. Fayfield’s property was surveyed. On the west there was some overlap. Davis also asked the Peterson’s if they have any drainage problems currently. Ms. Peterson responded there is a swale today. Mr. Pemberton explained they surveyed toward the Peterson property and tied things together after locating a couple of the Peterson property corners. Mr. Pemberton noted they did locate the culvert that goes from the Peterson property north to the subject property. Commissioner Hutchins stated that when looking at the drainage plan it appears the land to the north of the subject property is also staked. He asked Director Nielsen if he is aware of any development plans for that piece of property. He then asked if the impact of the additional drainage, due to the increased hardcover, on the large wetland in the middle of the subject property and the small wetland on the northerly edge of the property was considered. Director Nielsen noted that normally the property downstream is the main concern, but upstream is also considered. Nielsen explained that when the City Engineer receives the stormwater calculations for the wetland area he can assess the impacts thoroughly. He then explained that the rate of runoff after development can not exceed the rate of runoff prior to development. If the stormwater calculations indicate that rate of stormwater leaving the site will be faster CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 7 of 14 than what exists today the developer will have to install some type of retention pond to hold the stormwater for a period of time and control the rate of runoff. The same thing holds true if the stormwater is backing up. Chair Geng asked if in general a retention pond could be created in a wetland buffer. Director Nielsen responded it could. Commissioner Hasek asked if there is a list of the surveyed trees on the subject property. Commissioner Davis noted they are indicated on the tree survey included in the meeting packet. Hasek commented that the plum tree on the subject property has not been pruned in a long time and is not worth keeping. Therefore the driveway can be moved to the west and that tree sacrificed. Hasek stated that tree #1501 is a walnut tree not an ash tree. He recommended leaving the walnut tree on the property if possible. Hasek then asked if decks are allowed in wetland buffers. Nielsen responded they are not. Hasek went on to ask how far above flood elevation a basement walkout has to be. Nielsen stated he thought it is 3 feet, but he is not totally sure of that. Hasek stated if that is true he suggested that after the current driveway is removed the City Engineer may want to encourage the developer to lower the area slightly because the area of that elevation will be close to the basement elevation on Lot 2. Hasek then asked about the fire lane trail from Brand Circle to Christmas Lane. Director Nielsen explained that street used to go through. The neighbors petitioned to have it closed off. The City decided to install a cul-de-sac (which the residents paid for) and closed off the thru street leaving it as fire access only. Hasek commented that the ROW for Brand Circle is only 40 feet wide. Hasek asked if the small segment of trail is reflected on the trail map in the Trail Plan. Nielsen stated the map doesn’t show a trail on Christmas Lake Road or Christmas Lane. Nielsen noted that trail segment is counted as an on-street trail. Commissioner Davis stated she would like the plat drawing to reflect more appropriate house footprints based on what has been discussed this evening. She also wanted the drawings to reflect the driveway being moved out of the wetland setback and the tree removed. She also wanted clarifications included about not allowing decks and porches in wetland setbacks. Commissioner Hasek agreed. Mr. Zehnder stated that he spoke with Director Nielsen the previous week about the City not allowing wetland averaging. He noted he is fully aware a different style of home will have to be built on Lot 2 than what is currently illustrated. He stated a shallower home will be built instead; one that allows the homeowner to put a deck or porch on the rear of the house. He then stated the same house will not be constructed on all three lots. Hasek moved, continuing the Public Hearing for the preliminary plat for Eric Zehnder for the property located at 6040 Christmas Lake Road to the February 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Chair Geng asked if there are any concerns regarding the 60-day rule with regard to this request. Director Nielsen responded the City will have to give notice to the applicant that it will not be able to satisfy the 60-day rule for acting on this request. The notice can extend the time to 120 days. Chair Geng asked Mr. Zehnder what the impact would be to him if Council action on this item is delayed until mid to late February 2012. Mr. Zehnder stated once Council approves the preliminary plat is it considered an approved plat. Director Nielsen stated if Council wants to approve the preliminary plat Staff will ask Council to direct Staff to draft a resolution which stipulates all of the conditions of the preliminary plat approval. As a practical matter once Council approves the preliminary plat it is approved. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Zehnder stated if he received approval in February it is not an issue because nothing will start until April anyway. Davis seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:07 P.M. Per Mr. Peterson’s request, Director Nielsen explained what stormwater runoff means. Nielsen noted stormwater runoff calculations are discussed as part of the final plat consideration. He explained the stormwater calculations and the final grading plan are submitted as part of the final plat consideration. Council takes action on both the preliminary and final plat. 2. DISCUSSION – ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ALLOWABLE FRONT YARD ENCROACHMENTS Director Nielsen explained that during its November 28, 2011, meeting Council discussed a variance request involving an entry structure encroaching into a front yard setback. The applicants withdrew their variance application at the end of that discussion. He noted the Planning Commission had recommended denying the request because it didn’t meet the standards for granting a variance. He explained the applicants raised some issues with regard to older homes and how entry features are treated. Those issues generated consensus among the Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers to review the Zoning Code (the Code) to determine what, if any, change should be made in terms of allowable encroachments in the front yard setback area. He noted Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) already allows small entries to be added on and encroach into the setback area up to four feet in order to create an energy airlock. There had been some agreement that the proposed covered walkway to the entry feature had some merit. The applicants were trying to make the entrance to their home more easily accessible by the disabled and elderly. Nielsen then explained that Staff was directed to review the Code and make amendment recommendations. He noted the meeting packet contains a copy of Staff’s recommendations. He reviewed the recommendations which are as follows. 1. Add the definition of portico to the definitions section of the Code. “Portico – A covered walkway in the form of a roof supported by columns or pillars, usually attached to a building, and leading to an entrance of the building.” 2. Define what is allowed for a portico, making it consistent with provision in 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) for the airlock feature. a. The portico can be wider than four feet but can only encroach into the front yard setback four feet. b. The length of the portico can not be longer than 25 percent of the width of silhouette of the building, excluding eaves and including the garage, as viewed from the street. c. This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at last 60 percent open. d. Ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the American Disabilities Act may encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. (The current Code does not have a provision for ramp systems that rise above grade to encroach into the front yard setback.) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 9 of 14 Nielsen explained Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) states “A one story enclosed entrance for a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling, existing prior to adoption of this chapter, may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width.” Nielsen noted Staff recommends amending Subd. 3.c(2) to read as follows. “(2) For a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling in any residential zoning district, ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the American Disabilities Act may encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. For a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to 19 May 1986: (a) A one story enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. (b) A one story open portico may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet, provided: (i) The length of the portico shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and (ii) This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60 percent open.” Chair Geng stated he thought the solution proposed by Director Nielsen is very good. The solution is simple and it can be easily monitored. He thought this could prove helpful for older homes. He noted in the neighborhood where the above referenced applicants live many of the houses are built close to the street. Commissioner Hasek stated he absolutely agrees with the handicapped access addition. He questioned if it should be temporary. Director Nielsen responded there is no such thing as temporary. Nielsen stated there is no good way to know when there is no longer a need for access for disabled individuals. Nielsen explained if the City knows the need is temporary (e.g., 1 – 3 years) the City can require a letter of credit and stipulate when a certain condition occurs the property owner has to do something or the City will do it for them and use the letter of credit. When the need is for say 5 – 10 years it becomes extremely difficult to enforce. Nielsen stated that when there is no longer a need for disabled access devices people tend to take them down. There was ensuing discussion between Commissioner Hasek and Director Nielsen about what type of disabled access devices are allowable under the proposed amendment. Commissioner Hasek questioned if the 25 percent restriction for the length of the portico may be too small. He suggested the restriction be 50 percent noting he did not think there would ever be a need to exceed that. Director Nielsen commented that whatever the restriction is there will always be some instance when it doesn’t work. Nielsen stated part of the walkway could be uncovered. Commissioner Davis stated she agreed that 25 percent is too low. Davis then stated there is a desire to have builders CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 10 of 14 build longer, shallower houses and 50 percent would work for them. Davis agreed that 50 percent would be more than sufficient. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen why he has recommended 25 percent. Nielsen explained to keep the portico minimal, and he reminded the Commissioners this is about a structure that can extend four feet into the front yard setback. Nielsen commented that it is an arbitrary number and he would not want it to be so small that people have to apply for variances. Geng asked if Nielsen had issue with increasing it to 50 percent. Nielsen responded that seems to be too high. Commissioner Hasek stated he didn’t want the percent to be so low that it will cause people to have to apply for variances. Hasek expressed his preference to set the percent too high. Nielsen stated 50 percent would probably accommodate a residential handicap ramp better because they need to stretch out longer. Commissioner Hutchins noted it is called the Americans With Disabilities Act and recommended the amendment be corrected to say that. There was consensus to change the 25 percent restriction to a 50 percent restriction. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code amendment subject to changing “American Disabilities Act” to “Americans With Disabilities Act” and changing “The length of the portico shall not exceed twenty-five percent …” to “The length of the portico shall not exceed fifty percent…” Motion passed 6/0. Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this proposed Zoning Code amendment during its February 21, 2012, meeting. 3. DISCUSSION – MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSING Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a second draft of the proposed amendment to City Code Chapter 311 Therapeutic Massage Licensing. It contains the changes the Planning Commission recommended during its December 6, 2011, meeting. Commissioner Hutchins recommended in Section 311.03 Subd. 1.(b) changing “or other businesses have used” to “or other business names they have used”. Also for consistency, in Section 311.08 Subd. 3 changing “Practice massage only” to “Practice massage therapy only”. Commissioner Garelick asked how similar the language in this amended Ordinance is when compared to ordinances for other cities in the area. Director Nielsen responded it varies and some cities don’t license massage therapists. Director Nielsen explained the current Ordinance requires each individual massage therapist to get a license from the City of Shorewood. The City has a background check conducted on them. The Planning Commission had previously suggested the business should be licensed and that the business be responsible for background checks on individual therapists. Staff has talked about licensing the business and potentially having a minor license for a nominal fee for individual therapists at a given business. Chair Geng noted that Section 311.03 Subd. 2 states “All licenses issued under this chapter shall expire on the last day of December each year.” He asked if that means an applicant has to submit an application annually. Director Nielsen stated the business has to do that and the business doesn’t have to specify how many therapists work there. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 11 of 14 Director Nielsen stated if the City conducted a spot check on a business and, for example, it has 12 therapy tables it should be able to provide the necessary information on at least 12 therapists. Chair Geng suggested adding a condition to Sections 311.03 Subd. 1. (a) – (f) requiring the business to identify on the application the therapists working at the business. Administrator Heck stated the proposed amended Ordinance does mirror ordinances of other cities in the metropolitan area. But, this Ordinance only applies to businesses. Some cities also license practitioners. He then stated the problem with identifying the names of the individual therapists at time of licensing is there is a lot of turnover in therapists. He went on to state the easiest way to track individual therapists is to require them to get a minor license for a minimal fee. He commented that he is aware that there are differing opinions between Planning Commissioners with regard to streamlining this for all affected parties. Chair Geng asked what the amount of the nominal fee for an individual would be. Director Nielsen stated Staff has discussed a fee of $25. Commissioner Hasek asked if $25 would cover administrative costs. Director Nielsen stated it would cover paper work. It wouldn’t cover the cost if the City asked the police department to do a “cover” check, but the business license fee would. Administrator Heck explained $25 would cover the cost to process the paper work provided the City doesn’t have to do a lot of extensive research on an individual’s qualifications and requirements. Heck noted the business is responsible for doing background checks on individual therapists. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the advantage of doing dual licensing is if there were to be some type of violation by a therapist the therapist could lose their small license immediately for infraction. There could potentially be a system where if there were two violations by therapists the business could suffer. Chair Geng stated when a business owner originally asked the City to considering changing its massage licensing ordinance the owner was looking for licensing on a sliding scale based on when the therapist started with the business. He assumed that with the minor license approach that nominal fee would not be prorated. Director Nielsen responded that is correct. Commissioner Charbonnet stated there are references to employees in the amendment. He suggested the wording be changed so it covers independent contractors. Administrator Heck stated they could be called practitioners or therapists. Director Nielsen stated if the decision is made to require individual therapists to get a minor license for a nominal fee he will have to make revisions to the amendment. Commissioner Hutchins stated that would be rehashing what the Planning Commission discussed months ago. The Commission made a decision to license the business only in part because of the transient nature of therapists between businesses. Commissioner Hasek stated that boat has sailed. Director Nielsen stated he will make the minor changes discussed this evening. Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of the amendment to the Therapeutic Massage Licensing Ordinance subject to making the minor changes discussed during this meeting. Motion passed 6/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 12 of 14 4. DISCUSSION – 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Director Nielsen stated during its December 6, 2011, meeting the Planning Commissioners had been provided with a potential list of tasks for the Commission’s 2012 work program. They were asked to send him a list of how they thought the tasks should be prioritized. He noted that Chair Geng and Commissioner Hutchins are the only Commissioners who submitted a prioritized list. Nielsen then stated the intent is to complete the higher priority tasks earlier in the year. The top four items in his draft work program are the zoning code study (discussed earlier in the evening), a Code amendment for therapeutic massage licensing, a Code amendment for farm and other animals, and additional work on Smithtown Crossing. He noted that farm and other animals is not necessarily a high priority item but the Commission has been talking about it for quite some time and it should be wrapped up. The Zoning Code Study on general provisions is anticipated to go on throughout 2012. The task to revisit Comprehensive Plan Planning District 6 could take longer than what is shown on the work program. Nielsen asked the Commission how it would like to move forward with prioritizing the tasks. He then asked if the work program schedule he drafted makes sense. He noted the schedule is based on one Commission meeting a month unless there is a real need for a second. Commissioner Hasek reviewed his prioritized list. He stated he thought the priority 1 tasks should include tasks the Commission has already started to work on that should be completed. Priority 1 tasks should also include things that are the most important issues. Director Nielsen should provide that guidance. Priority 2 tasks should be tasks related to the City Code and Comprehensive (Comp) Plan, tasks that have a 2012 deadline for completion, and GreenStep Cities Program tasks that need to be completed in 2012. The remaining tasks would be Priority 3 tasks. He listed his Priority 1 tasks which he thought were the same as Director Nielsen’s. They are zoning Code study about entry porches and encroachments, Smithtown Crossing, Code amendment for therapeutic massage licensing, and Code amendment for farm and other animals. Chair Geng reviewed his Priority 1 tasks that he sent to Director Nielsen earlier this month. They are the Code study about entry porches and encroachments, Smithtown Crossing, a revisit of Comp Plan Planning District 6, the Code Study about mixed use regulations, and the Comp Plan about variances and nonconformities. He expressed his agreement with finishing what has already been started. He recommended taking into consideration what Council’s priorities are for the Planning Commission. Director Nielsen noted there is a joint meeting with the Council scheduled for February 21, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. Chair Geng stated he would be comfortable with going with the schedule drafted by Director Nielsen. It can be adjusted based on Council feedback. There was Planning Commission consensus to go with the schedule drafted by Director Nielsen and to adjust it based on Council feedback. 5. APPOINT CHAIR / VICE-CHAIR AND UPDATE COUNCIL LIAISON SCHEDULE Director Nielsen stated Commissioners Arnst’s and Hasek’s Planning Commission terms are up the end of February. Arnst has informed the City that she will not reapply. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 13 of 14 Director Nielsen stated that Administrator Heck suggested he ask the Planning Commission if they would prefer to wait to appoint a chair and vice-chair until after the replacement commissioners are seated. Commissioner Hasek stated that makes sense to him, noting there is no guarantee he will be reappointed. He noted the plan is for Council to interview candidates on February 27, 2012. Heck stated the Park Commission chose to postpone making similar appointments until the two soon-to-be open seats are filled. Council Liaison Hotvet supported waiting to make those two appointments. There was Planning Commission consensus to make the chair appointment and vice-chair appointment during the Commission’s March meeting. Council Liaisons were selected as followed: January 2012 Chair Geng February 2012 Commissioner Davis March 2012 Commissioner Garelick April 2012 Commissioner Hutchins 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. OLD BUSINESS None. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Chair Geng stated there is a public hearing slated for the February 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. It is a continuation of this evening’s preliminary plat public hearing. Director Nielsen stated there will one more public hearing for a lot line rearrangement along Woodside Road. There will be continued discussion of the Code amendment for farm and other animals. The Zoning Code text amendment regarding allowable front yard encroachments will be on the February 21, 2012 agenda. Director Nielsen stated that from his vantage point the Planning Commission bogged down on the discussion of farm and other animals when it came to the number of chickens that would be allowed. He asked the Commissioners to think about what they want the Ordinance to accomplish in advance of the February 8, 2012, meeting. He stated it’s intended to allow a family to raise animals for themselves. It’s not intended to allow a business from a person’s home. He noted he will send out a clarification email on the Ordinance. Commissioner Hasek stated he did not think it would be out of line to allow six chickens because chickens die and young ones are being raised to replace them. Director Nielsen stated he agreed that there should be an allowance for overlap. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 14 of 14 10. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Councilmember Hutchins reported on matters considered and actions taken at the December 12, 2011, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC No report was given. • Other None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 2012, at 9:09 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder