Loading...
PC-06-03-14 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2014 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Labadie, Maddy, and Muehlberg; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Davis APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the agenda for June 3, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  May 6, 2014 Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Applicant: Peter and Marie Lehman Location: 21265/21285 Radisson Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a minor subdivision/combination, variances and conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for Peter and Marie Lehman for the properties located at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road. He explained the Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. They 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. Director Nielsen explained that Peter and Marie Lehman own the properties located at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road. The properties are zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential and are subject to shoreland management regulations. The 21285 property contains 7500 square feet of area and the 21265 property contains 38,758 feet of area. For the R-1A zoning district 40,000 square feet is the minimum required. The applicants’ home is located on the 21265 property as well as two small cabins. There is one small cabin on the 21285 property. In addition to the very substandard area and width of the existing lots, CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 2 of 14 particularly the westerly lot, four dwellings on two lots is inconsistent with the current single-family zoning. The applicants’ intent is to equalize the width and area of the two parcels, remove the existing very nonconforming small cabins, and build a new home on the newly enlarged westerly lot. He displayed an exhibit showing the size of the proposed lots. The applicants’ plans necessitate the following zoning actions: Minor subdivision (a lot line rearrangement that would change the configuration of the two lots)  Lot area variances  - Reconfigured 21265 property (Tract A) – 24,848 square feet (40,000 square feet required) - Reconfigured 21285 property (Tract B) – 21,410 square feet (40,000 square feet required) Lot width variances  - Tract A – 81 feet (120 feet required) - Tract B – 90 feet (120 feet required) Building setback variances  - Existing garage – 12.8 feet from east side (20 feet required) - Proposed new home – 35 feet from Merry Lane (50 feet required) with required eave exception Conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to build a home on a substandard shoreland lot  With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated the improvements over the current situation are quite drastic. They will bring things more towards conformity. He explained that prior to 2006 nonconforming structures and uses were treated differently than they are today. It used to be that if one of the nonconforming structures were demolished or destroyed to 50 percent or more of their value it could not be replaced. A lot of times cities including Shorewood would wait out the situations and eventually someone would want to do something with their property and they would have to remove the nonconformity. In 2006 the legislature passed laws that allowed them to be put back to their former extent if destroyed (even if they were intentionally taken down). He explained the new house will comply with the rear yard setback and front yard setback. It will not comply with the side yard setback against Merry Lane (35 feet instead of 50 feet). To mitigate that the applicants propose a landscape plan and staff recommends that initiating that plan be a condition of approval. Both properties will comply with hardcover requirements (25 percent for shoreland lots). He then explained since the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission the Lehmans have asked for a couple of things. One was a 15 foot variance rather than a 14 foot setback variance for the side yard abutting Merry Lane. They are also asking to keep the middle of the three cabins. Peter Lehman, 21265 Radisson Road, stated they had forgotten to include in the proposal that they wanted to keep the middle of their three cabins and that removing two cabins will eliminate the nonconformity of four houses on two lots. He explained their intention is to sell their primary residence and they want to live in the middle cabin while they stage their 21265 property and try to sell it. Once that property is sold they it will determine their budget for building their new home on their 21285 property. He anticipates they will spend months with an architect refining the plan for their new home. They intend to live on the 21285 property during that process. They want to keep the middle cabin until their permit is pulled. They are trying to mitigate risk in the event there would be, for example, a tragedy or health issue. The staff recommendations include demolishing the three cabins within 60 days of the release of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 3 of 14 resolution approving the rearrangement, variances and C.U.P. They have submitted a letter dated June 1, 2014, in response to the staff recommendations asking to keep the middle cabin until the new home can be constructed, and to be given one to three years to construct their new home. Director Nielsen explained that he had told the Lehmans that three years was too long. He initially suggested that they could be given six months to take the third cabin down. He explained he reviewed other requests where someone was allowed to keep a dwelling while they built a new one and then take the other dwelling down within one year. That is consistent with what the City Code requires for both variances and C.U.P.s. A person has one year to use them. That same one year will apply to the middle cabin they want to use for a while. He clarified that the 60-day demolition recommendation for two of the cabins stands. He noted that the staff report contains a list of recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Lehman noted his lots have been around since the 1940s. They first moved into their home 28 years ago this month. They were married on the property and raised their three children there. Mr. Lehman provided some history about the area. He stated a public access was put in at Christmas Lake in 1987. That access is directly to the south of their property. The Brooks addition to the east of their property was developed in the 1980s. Seven new R-1A lots were created at that time. Immediately to the east of that there are historical homes that were rezoned to R-1A; they are all kind of small. Their home is in that category of homes on the north side of Christmas Lake. As part of the expansion of Highway 7 their property was reduced in size by10 or 15 feet. Both properties were affected by that expansion. There was a Christmas Shores development to the west of their properties along Merry Lane to the west of the public access with R-1A lots. At that time Merry Lane was expanded. It was moved further to the east closer to their property. He stated that he and his wife are primarily concerned about mitigating their risk. Should something happen they do not want to be left with an empty lot. They do not think they should be forced to have a vacant lot should an event occur in their lives that is outside of their control. He highlighted changes he proposed for the staff report dated May 28, 2014. Zoning Code Compliance Item 4 – change the 14-foor side yard variance to 15-foot (35 feet  instead of 50 feet) to accommodate a three-foot eave. Recommendation Item 6 – change the demolition of the small cabins to demolition of two of  three small cabins. He thought getting rid of two of three small cabins within 60 days is reasonable. Also there is text in the Item about them potentially living in one of the cabins while their new home is built. They no longer intend to live on the 21285 property while the new home is being built. The middle cabin is where the new home would be built. When construction is to begin the cabin will be demolished. Recommendation Item 8 – it states that “Upon recording of the minor subdivision the applicants  have one year to make use of the variance and conditional use permit.” They asked that be changed to three years. Economic conditions can change quickly. Mr. Lehman asked the Planning Commission to accept the changes he proposed to the staff report and to recommend approval of their requests. Chair Geng thanked Mr. Lehman and noted his annotations on the staff report were helpful. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 4 of 14 Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M. Commissioner Labadie stated approving the Lehmans request for three years is a bad precedent to set. She noted that she appreciates some of the concerns about risk (e.g., the economy, the housing market) conveyed. She stated Director Nielsen indicated that in the past the City has allowed one year. She thought that is reasonable. Director Nielsen noted the ordinance has a provision that allows the applicant to come back to the City before the one year is up for the C.U.P. and request a 6-month extension. That gives the applicants 18 months to sell their 21265 property. Commissioner Labadie stated that additional 6 months addresses some of their concerns. She noted that she has no problems with the rest of the applicants’ requests. She thought the proposal is fantastic. Removing the cabins and constructing another home would improve the neighborhood. Chair Geng stated he would echo Commissioner Labadie’s comments with respect to the one year time limit on the C.U.P. especially since learning the applicants can ask for a 6-month extension before the one year is up. He recommended two cabins be demolished within 60 days and the middle cabin be left standing for no more than one year. Director Nielsen stated Recommendation Item 6 talks about getting a bid for the demolition of the cabins. That bid should include all three. Chair Geng commended the applicants for coming forward with their plan. The improvements will reduce the nonconformity substantially. He stated he thought their plan is beautiful. He appreciates the work that has gone into it. The landscape plan is well thought out and appropriate to the area. Commissioner Maddy stated if for some reason the applicants do not make the year or possibly 18-month deadline he asked if the City would take the middle cabin down. Director Nielsen responded the applicants would; the letter or credit or escrow would guarantee that. If they did not there would be an escrow agreement stating the City would then do that using their money. Maddy asked if the applicants would have to get building permits within 18 months if they did not build within that time. Director Nielsen explained that if they did not build within that time they would have to reapply for variances and the C.U.P. to build on the 21285 lot. Chair Geng stated the request to keep the middle cabin longer than 60 days was not part of the original application. Director Nielsen stated the timing of the demolition is not in the notice anyway. Commissioner Muehlberg noted that he agrees that it should be a one year time limit with the opportunity for another six months. He stated there is a lot of risk for anyone building a new home. He commented he had been in the position of owning two homes for 18 months and that was a difficult situation. Mr. Lehman stated if they had just applied for a lot line rearrangement without applying for variances and a C.U.P. for a new home and if he was willing to remove two of three cabins to get rid of that nonconforming use he asked the Planning Commission if it would have recommended approval. The nonconforming use is the four house/cabins on two properties. That is one of the worst types of zoning nonconformities. He then stated he does not think it is unreasonable to keep one 600-square-foot cabin on the second property they own. He noted the worst case is he has a 600-square-foot cabin on that property and the best case is he has a 4000-square-foot house with an attached garage on it. For the best case the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 5 of 14 hardcover would be way up. He stated having the one cabin there is not going to cause anyone any harm. He noted he finds it unreasonable to ask him to remove a good house on a lot. He stated leaving it on the property helps him mitigate his risk. He asked that be taken into serious consideration. Commissioner Maddy stated he did travel down that path of consideration. If two cabins were removed and there was one small cabin on larger lot everyone would be better off. But, if that were the scenario then the applicant would not have any rights to the reduced setbacks to build a house on that lot. By the applicants guarantying the third cabin will be gone within the stated time the City is willing to relax its rules to allow the applicant a reasonable amount of time to build house on the lot. There is a trade. Chair Geng concurred there is a trade. It is not all take on the part of the City. He stated the Planning Commission and Council have to be mindful of when it does grant variances. It is not just a variance at a single point in time. He then stated that the applicants had pointed out that a similar variance was granted in the not too distant past. He noted he appreciates the applicants’ concern about risk. But, that has to be balanced with public policy. Commissioner Labadie stated there is one proposal before the Planning Commission this evening. It can either recommend approval or denial. The possibility of hypotheticals is not before the Commission. Maddy moved, Labadie seconded, recommending approval of Peter and Marie Lehman’s request for a minor subdivision/combination, variances and conditional use permit for their properties located at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road subject to the conditions identified in the Staff report and allowing the middle cabin to stay standing for up to one year. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen stated this item will go before the City Council on June 23, 2014. Mr. Lehman clarified that the staff report recommendation has identified three items that must be submitted within 30 days before their applications will be scheduled to go before the City Council. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Applicant: Northern State Power Company (Xcel Energy) Location: 5505 Country Road 19 Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M., noting the same procedures followed for the previous public hearing will be followed again. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for additional accessory buildings for Northern States Power Company (aka Xcel Energy) for its property located at 5505 County Road 19. Director Nielsen explained that Xcel Energy proposes to add two equipment storage buildings to their site. Because “governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures” are listed as conditional uses in the Shorewood Zoning Code, Xcel is requesting a C.U.P., pursuant to Section1201.22 Subd. 4.e. of the Code. He noted that Xcel has been a good neighbor. The property is zoned C-1, General Commercial. The property contains approximately 5.63 acres of land; 5.04 acres of it are in Shorewood and the remainder is in Tonka Bay. It is currently occupied by the Xcel Service Center, which includes the west metro offices, maintenance garage and storage building. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows. North: LRT Trail, then a landscape business in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 6 of 14 East: School bus garage and Xcel storage building in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial South: Shopping Center in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial West: Two-family dwellings and apartments; zoned R-C, Residential-Commercial Xcel’s principal building (offices and maintenance garage) contains 31.432 square feet of area. Xcel is proposing to add two new buildings. The southerly building will be 72 feet by 72 feet and will contain 5184 square feet of area. The northerly building will be 104 feet by 41 feet and will contain 4264 square feet. The larger, southerly building will be 26 feet high and the northerly structure will be 21 feet high. Nielsen reviewed how the applicant’s request complies with the conditions stipulated in Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.e. and Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.f. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. A. Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.e. sets forth four criteria for the type of use being proposed (governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures). 1. The Service Center has historically been compatible with nearby residential activities (primarily to the west of County Road 19). The proposed buildings comply with C-1 standards. The minimum front setback is 30 feet. The proposed buildings are 108 feet and 203 feet back from the front property line. The northerly building is 20.8 feet from the side lot line, where only 15 feet is required. 2. Outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment is entirely enclosed by a fence. There are some places where the screening is not very good (it is just a chain link fence) so the storage yard is quite visible. The new buildings will mitigate some of that; some of the equipment will be stored inside. 3. Additional screening and landscaping is provided adjacent to residential uses. This is where the existing facility and the proposed plans are somewhat lacking. The existing site plan shows some sort of vegetation along the west side of the existing parking lot, outside the fence. The parking and storage of equipment is quite visible from County Road 19 and from the residential properties to the west. Those areas need to be screened better. Staff has strongly recommended the applicant have a professional landscape plan prepared addressing this item that fills in some of those gaps. The landscape plan should be a condition of approval. 4. The proposed use of the site is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and with the C-1 zoning of the property. B. Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.f. of the Zoning Code allows for open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in the C-1 District. For the most part the property does comply with that. 1. Outdoor storage does not take up more than 30 percent of the site area and it occupies less area than the first floor of the principal building. In this regard, the proposed buildings actually improve the site by providing indoor space for much of the equipment storage. 2. Fencing and screening were addressed in Item A.3 above. 3. Screening from the public right-of-way was addressed in A.3 as well. 4. Storage areas are surfaced to control dust. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 7 of 14 5. Landscaping was addressed in A.3. 6. Proposed lighting plans indicate that two of the existing pole fixtures on the site will be replaced by wall-mounted, downcast fixtures on the southerly building. The photometric plans indicate that the light levels will be well within the Zoning Code standards of no more than 0.4 foot-candles at the property line. 7. Parking for the site is considered to be adequate and the proposed buildings are not taking up existing parking areas. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the C.U.P. for Northern States Power Company be granted subject to the applicant submitting a landscape plan addressing the issues raised in the Staff report and recommendations made in in the City Engineer’s report both dated May 29, 2014. Commissioner Labadie stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the proposed traffic circulation graphic. She asked if there are any concerns about it. Director Nielsen stated that circulation is the same as the existing circulation. Xcel will continue to use the same way on to and off of the property. Chair Geng asked the Xcel representative if he had any issues with any of the items identified in the City Engineer’s report. Brian Fitzgerald, with TKDA Architects and Engineers, stated that his firm can develop a concept for a landscape plan that can be reviewed with Director Nielsen prior to the City Council meeting when this will be considered. Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Fitzgerald if the owners expressed concern about the suggested screening. There is a lot of copper and metal on that site. And, with more screening it will reduce the ability to see if there are any devious people on the site. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he has not heard any concerns expressed about that. He noted the yard area where everything is stored is fenced in. And there are security cameras that are monitored. Commissioner Muehlberg stated the staff reports states that the two new buildings will be used to house vehicles and equipment that are currently kept outside in the storage yard. He asked if there are plans to increase the amount of equipment. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified that some of the vehicles that will be housed in the new buildings are currently housed in the existing building. That will free up space in the existing building for some of the additional equipment that is on site. He stated that some of Xcel’s trucks have increased in size over the years and they no longer fit well in the existing building. He noted the new buildings are not being built to bring more trucks or additional staff to the site. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:57 P.M. Commissioner Maddy asked if the Planning Commission wants to see the landscape plan or should Council just make the call. Commissioner Labadie stated she is okay with it going to Council without the Commission’s review. Chair Geng stated he thought it prudent to have Director Nielsen look at it first. In response to a question from Geng, Nielsen explained if the plan is not available before the June 23 Council meeting then the City will have to send the applicant a letter informing them that the City cannot satisfy the 60-day rule. Mr. Fitzgerald stated Xcel would like the application to be considered during CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 8 of 14 Council’s June 23 meeting. Nielsen noted for that to happen the landscape plan has to be summited to the City by June 18. Maddy moved, Labadie seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for accessory buildings for Northern States Power, 5505 County Road 19, subject to the conditions identified in the Staff report and the City Engineer’s report both dated May 29, 2014, and the applicant submitting a professional landscape plan to the Planning Director by June 18. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:01 P.M. 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT) Applicant: Darin Busch Location: 5360/5366 Vine Hill Road Chair Geng noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on June 23, 2014. Director Nielsen explained that Darin Busch and Philip Dritsas own the properties located at 5360 and 5366 Vine Hill Road, respectively. Mr. Busch wants to purchase 20 feet of Mr. Dritsas’ property to enlarge his property southward. Both properties are located in the R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning district. The Busch property contains 20,001 square feet of area, exclusive of road easement, and the Dritsas property contains 47,489 square feet, exclusive of road and wetland conservation easements. Upon completion of the lot line rearrangement the property sizes will be 23,001 square feet for the Busch property and 44,489 square feet for the Dritsas property. Both lots will meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code. The only complication is that the existing drainage and utility easements along the current common lot line must be vacated. That requires the City Council to hold a public hearing. Replacement easements will be recorded with the minor subdivision/combination. Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision/combination and vacation of existing easements subject to the applicant’s attorney preparing deeds for the new easements and an up- to-date title opinion for the property. Darin Busch, 5360 Vine Hill Road, explained the only reason for doing this is to address an encroachment issue he caused about six years ago when he had a fire pit professionally installed by landscape architects. A few years later he realized the lot line was not where he thought it was. He and Mr. Dritsas discussed it at that time and Mr. Dritsas stated some day when he wants to sell his property the encroachment issue should be resolved. Now is that time because Mr. Dritsas has put is property up for sale. They have agreed to a price for him to purchase a small strip of land from Mr. Dritsas. He noted there is a permanent easement on his property on file for the driveway access. Chair Geng told Mr. Busch that he appreciated his candor. He commended him for working with his neighbor. He stated he thought it was nice that the neighbors could work things out. He then stated this is a perfect example of why the City needs to permit the construction of that type of fire pit. Director Nielsen explained the City implemented a zoning permit system in 2013 for things like patios, fences and other things not covered by the City Zoning Code. In response to a question from Mr. Busch, Director Nielsen explained that the public hearing for vacating the easements will be held on June 23. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 9 of 14 Commissioner Maddy asked if the culvert maintenance easement will be affected. Director Nielsen responded no. Labadie moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision for Philip Dritsas, 5366 Vine Hill Road, and the combination of the 3000 square-foot strip of that property with the property located at 5360 Vine Hill Road owned by Darin Busch as well as the easement vacations subject to the applicant’s attorney preparing deeds for the new easements and an up-to- date title opinion for the property and after receiving a certified copy of the resolution approving the subdivision/combination the applicant must record the division with Hennepin County within 30 days. Motion passed 4/0. 4. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT) Applicant: William Zucco Location: 4485/4545 Enchanted Point Director Nielsen explained that William Zucco owns the property located at 4485 Enchanted Point. He proposes to sell the easterly 50 feet of his property to Elizabeth Larsen, the owner of the property located at 4545 Enchanted Point. Both properties are located in the R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. It requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The Zucco property currently contains 96,480 square feet of area and the Larsen property contains 29,290 square feet. Upon completion of the lot line rearrangement, the Zucco property will contain 80,565 square feet of area and the Larsen property will contain 45,205 square feet of area. He then explained the first condition of approval in the staff report was for the survey to be revised to include additional right-of-way across the northerly 21.3 feet of the Larsen property. Mr. Zucco has told him that Ms. Larsen does not want to give up any of the property. The Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club property across the street is subdividable; it could create more than one lot. Based on that, he recommends dropping the first and second conditions of approval. Nielsen noted that staff recommends the applicant’s request be approved, subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant’s surveyor should prepare legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements as shown on the proposed subdivision/combination. 2. The applicant’s attorney must prepare deeds for the proposed drainage and utility easements. 3. The applicant’s attorney must prepare an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. They can provide a title commitment rather than a title opinion if preferred. 4. Items 1 – 3 must be completed within 30 days, after which the request will be reviewed by the City Council. Upon his receipt of a certified copy of the resolution approving the subdivision/combination the applicant must record the division with Hennepin County within 30 days. Director Nielsen noted that the earliest this item can go before the City Council is June 23, 2014. In order to make that date the applicant must provide the City with the information above by June 18. Bill Zucco, 10348 Wildwood Road, Bloomington, clarified he is one of three siblings that own the 4485 Enchanted Point property. The property is in trust with his mother. He explained the property was CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 10 of 14 purchased in June 1921. His grandfather put the road in on Enchanted Island before there was a bridge. The reason they are doing what they are is to preserve the woods; that would have been very important to his mother. They have waited five years to get to this point. Chair Geng stated preserving the woods is a commendable thing for Mr. Zucco and his two siblings to do. Commissioner Maddy stated he is confused about the easement issue. He asked if the City is relaxing its policy of requiring easements. Director Nielsen explained that when the City has substandard right-of- way (ROW) a subdivision provides an opportunity to acquire that. It is a little more difficult with existing development than with new development when additional lots are created. This proposed subdivision/combination is not creating any new lots. If a division of the property across the road were to occur it would create at least one additional lot. When, if, that property is subdivided the City will acquire the additional ROW to bring Enchanted Point up to standard ROW width. Muehlberg moved, Labadie seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision for William Zucco, 4485 Enchanted Point, and the combination of that easterly 50 feet of that property with the property located at 4545 Enchanted Point owned by Elizabeth Larsen subject to the conditions recommended by staff listed above (Items 3 – 6 in the staff report). Motion passed 4/0. 5. REVIEW DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING ELDERLY HOUSING Director Nielsen apologized for not getting the draft ordinance regarding elderly housing to the Planning Commission before the meeting. He noted that he would not have done that if the changes weren’t relatively simple and if they had not been discussed during the Commission’s last meeting on May 6 (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He explained that during that meeting changes were discussed that might incent developers to build decent projects in Shorewood and most importantly on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. During panel discussions about the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study developers stated the allowable density of that area is too low to have an effective project in the City. The City’s ordinance does allow elderly housing in virtually all of the residential districts including the R- 1A and R-1B zoning districts which are single family large lot districts. By conditional use permit (C.U.P.) someone could build an elderly housing project of up to four units per acre in those two districts. That would be somewhat unlikely because they would have to have three acres to do a project and they could only build 12 units. For the R-1C, R-1D, R-2A, R-2B and R-2C zoning districts eight units per acre are allowed. The R-2 districts allow twin homes (two family dwellings). The R-3A, R-3B and R-C districts allow apartment buildings. He reviewed the changes he made to the Zoning Code based on what the Planning Commission had discussed. The first change is in Section 1201.03 Subd. 20.b(8)(c). The density was changed to 12 units per acre from 10 units for the R-3A, R-3B and R-C districts. Twelve units per acre is somewhat on the lower end of what some other communities around the area allow. The following provisions were added to Section 1201.03 Subd. 20.b(8). (d) For purposes of calculating density, assisted living units shall be counted as one-half unit. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 11 of 14 (e) Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. For projects that implement and effectuate the goals, objectives and guidelines of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, through site planning, architecture, building materials and landscaping, the following provisions may apply: (i) Allowable density may be increased to 15 units per acre. (ii) For projects that include a mixture of commercial and residential uses, the area of the entire site may be used to calculate density. (iii) The density for adjacent parcels within the Redevelopment Study Area may be transferred to the project site. In Section 1201.03 Subd. 5.h(8) Elderly Housing the provision of the two parking spaces per unit was deleted and the following two provisions were added. (a) Townhouse or cottage style housing: two parking spaces per unit (b) Apartments: one and one-half parking spaces per unit, plus proof of parking demonstrating the ability to provide two spaces per unit. He stated if the Planning Commission is agreeable he will schedule a public hearing for the changes for the Commission’s July 1 meeting. Chair Geng stated if a developer wanted to take advantage of the density transfer from the City-owned parcel in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area he asked if the developer would have to purchase that parcel. Director Nielsen responded not necessarily. Nielsen explained if the developer was unsuccessful in acquiring the other residential property in the Area the City’s parcel does not fit with the Area. The City could put eight units on its parcel. The City could transfer seven units of density to the developer and then sell the property for a single family home. Commissioner Maddy asked if that would require rezoning that property. Nielsen clarified that the property is already zoned R-1C. Geng noted that the Planning Commission discussed getting the proposed ordinance amendment before City Council as soon as possible. He asked if there is any serious interest in developing the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. Director Nielsen stated there could potentially be something for the Planning Commission to discuss as early as its July 1 meeting. Nielsen explained that developer has done a traffic study for two of its projects. It used the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) manual as part of its study. The manual assigns traffic counts to various land uses. The ITE manual states single family homes generate 8 – 10 trips per day (that count includes deliveries to the home). The City uses that also. Townhouses generate less traffic; the City uses 5 - 8 trips per day per unit for them. Senior housing generate a little over 2 trips per day per unit. In response to a question from Commissioner Muehlberg, Director Nielsen stated that out of the 3 – 4 developers he has spoken with the majority have spoken about mixed use development. Depending on how big the project could be they have spoken about independent living, assisted living and care facilities. There is a shortage of all of them in the City. Another developer was considering a cooperative where people own the units. That one would be all independent living apartment style. Because the ordinance amendment would count assisted living units as one-half unit that helps make a project feasible. Most developers are looking at 60 – 90 units for a site that size. The City should be able to accommodate that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 12 of 14 Commissioner Maddy asked if assisted living includes memory care. Director Nielsen clarified they are separate. Care facilities have more intense employee requirements. In response to another question, Nielsen stated for two assisted living units there would have to be 1.5 parking spaces and the developer would have to provide proof of parking. The proof of parking would have to be more than one-half space. Nielsen noted that he has to reword Section 1201.03 Subd. 5.h.(8)(b). Maddy clarified the proof of parking does not have to be an actual parking space; there just needs to be room to add the parking space if the use of the development changes to a condominium or apartment for example. Commissioner Muehlberg stated he has no idea how many employees would be needed for an assisted living facility. When he looked at that type of facility in another city he was surprised by the number of people who worked there. The parking lot was quite full during the middle of the day. Chair Geng stated when his late father lived in that type of unit the parking lot was quite full on weekends. Muehlberg stated that a lot of people in assisted living have to use motorized wheelchairs. He asked how they would get across County Road 19. Nielsen stated that project would have a pedestrian circulation and that would get residents to the corner and then there is a crosswalk at the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. Director Nielsen stated he will ask the developer who did the traffic studies for information about parking for other projects. Nielsen asked the Planning Commission if the draft amendment he presented accurately reflects what the Commission had discussed. Commissioner Muehlberg asked what section 1203.03 Subd.20.b(12) means. Specifically the words “where allowed”. Director Nielsen explained that if the City allows apartment style independent there has to be an elevator. Chair Geng noted that he can support holding a public hearing on the draft ordinance amendment on July 1. He questioned if the public would understand the proof of parking concept. Director Nielsen stated he will do a sketch to help people understand that. Geng suggested that Nielsen just have that available should someone ask what it means. He cautioned against doing that voluntarily because he does not want residents to think that area would be developed for an apartment. Director Nielsen stated during Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study panel discussions in which a number of developers who had done some relatively large projects participated the developers recommended the allowable height be increased for the project area. That original Study document included that. But, after hearing resident concerns that 45-foot height requirement was taken out. The maximum height requirement is now 40 feet for that site. Commissioner Labadie stated she likes that the word “may” is used in the new provisions in Section 1203.03 Subd.20.b(8). It gives the City flexibility. There was Planning Commission consensus to schedule a public hearing for its July 1 meeting. Director Nielsen stated he hopes there is not a proposal for the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area for the July 1 meeting. If there is a proposal the Planning Commission would have to consider it as if the ordinance amendment were approved and as if it were not approved by Council. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 13 of 14 6. DETERMINE LIAISONS TO COUNCIL FOR JUNE THROUGH DECEMBER 2014 Council Liaisons were selected as followed: June 2014 Chair Geng July 2014 Commissioner Muehlberg August 2014 Commissioner Labadie September 2014 Commissioner Maddy October 2014 Commissioner Davis 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 8. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Labadie asked what is going on with the proposed Summit Woods planned unit development (PUD). Director Nielsen stated he thought the developer hoped to bring the Final Plan Stage before Council during its June 23 meeting. But, he is not sure that is possible because the City has to receive the plans 20 days before the meeting. Director Nielsen explained there had been concern expressed about the way the driveway for the northern lot in the PUD came onto the street. Council asked staff to assess if the driveway should be moved. Staff did that and determined that based on the geometry there it is best for the driveway to be as far north as possible if Summit Avenue remains open in that area. It is a moot point if the cul-de-sac option is chosen for improvements to that roadway. Commissioner Muehlberg asked about the cracks in Summit Avenue. Director Nielsen stated the developer will have to repair any damages it makes to Summit Avenue. Director Nielsen stated any decision about improvements to Summit Avenue is on hold until the City receives the results of a Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) traffic study. He commented that he does not think that the residents who complained about Summit Avenue want it changed. Chair Geng asked what is going on with the proposed LRT Trail overpass at County Road 19. Director Nielsen reviewed some of the concerns staff had about what is being proposed by the Three Rivers Park District (as detailed in the minutes of the May 12, 2014, Council meeting). There was discussion about the dangers of crossing at street level now and in the future if the refuge island is taken out (that is what Hennepin County plans on doing). Commissioner Labadie asked if there have been a lot of accidents at the trail crossing near the Minnewashta School. Labadie then asked if the owner of the My Car Guy business is going to open up the bicycle repair shop. Director Nielsen stated that the person who had worked with that person was going to do that instead until he heard that the American Legion may have to terminate a lease within a year or two. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 14 of 14 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a public hearing for the Elderly Housing ordinance amendment slated for the July 1, 2014, meeting agenda. There may be some trail items on the agenda. There will also be some study session items discussion on the agenda. 10. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC • Other 11. ADJOURNMENT Labadie moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 3, 2014, at 9:12 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder