Loading...
PC-04-19-16 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 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; and, Council Liaison Sundberg Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Bean seconded, approving the agenda for April 19, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 15, 2016 Johnson moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 15, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONING PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND VARIANCES FOR LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH AND SETBACKS (continued from March 15, 2016) Applicant: Peter Lehman Location: 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She also noted the hearing was continued from March 15, 2016. She explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the 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 rezoning, a preliminary plat, and variances for lot area, lot width and setbacks. Director Nielsen explained Peter and Marie Lehman own the properties located at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road. The Lehmans’ current request is similar to one they made in 2014. The 21285 property contains 7500 square feet of area and the 21265 property contains 38,758 feet of area. The 21285 property has a small old cottage on it near the intersection of Merry Lane and Radisson Road. The properties are zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential and are subject to shoreland management regulations. That zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet of area. The applicants’ home is located CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 2 of 14 on the larger parcel; there are two cottages on it as well. The applicants have proposed rearranging the lot line between the two lots to make them both more buildable noting they would not meet the R-1A lot area requirement. He displayed graphics showing what the proposed lots (Track A and Track B) would look like. For their 2014 application they needed lot area variances for both lots, width variances for both lots, and a setback variance for the proposed new home. In exchange for those variances the three nonconforming cottages would be removed. Those structures are nonconforming with regard to location. Two are also a nonconforming use because only one house is allowed on a single-family residential lot under the Zoning Code. When it got toward the end of considering that application the applicants were reluctant to remove the cottages within the timeframe the City wanted that done. The City wanted two of the cottages to be removed within 60 days and the third within one year. The applicants chose not to pursue that application. The Lehmans again propose to rearrange the lot line between the two lots and leave their home as it is. It also includes keeping the cottage closest to the intersection of Marry Lane and Radisson Road. They basically would like a guarantee of what the setbacks would be on the new lot. The current proposal still requires variances for lot area, lot width and setbacks. It also requires a setback variance on the existing home. In order to get the guarantee they want they have proposed rezoning both properties to R-1C which allows 20,000 square foot lots and lesser setbacks. Staff views the proposed rezoning of those two properties as spot zoning. Staff does not advise doing that. The city attorney questions if that would even be legal. Nielsen reported that before the March 15, 2016, public hearing the applicants asked if there was a way to get the subdivision/combination approved without rezoning the properties and be guaranteed setback variances for Track B. The Zoning Code only allows variances for a period of one year. There is a provision that allows an applicant to request an extension. The city attorney advised him that he probably suggested a little more than he should have in his follow-up report dated April 17, 2016. In that report he indicated that councils have in the past granted a six month extension; the city attorney did not think he should have said that. For its 2014 application the applicants included building a new house on the 21825 property and the applicant had plans for the new house. In 2014 essentially R-1C standards were to be applied; a 35-foot setback along the street and the side yard abutting the street; a 50-foot setback along the Trunk Highway 7 service road consistent with the R-1A district. There would have been one variance involved for the side yard abutting the street; 36 feet instead of 50 feet. The current application does not include building a house. In order for the applicant to have a variance approved they must submit a specific plan on which the variance would be based. The applicant would have one year to use it. The applicants could use their 2014 plan to pseudo guarantee the variances. Per the city attorney, approving variances for which there is no plan would be similar to spot zoning. If there is some concern about the Lehmans’ ability to build a new home within one year they could eventually build a home that would be similar in size to the existing home. There had been discussion about the applicant wanting to live in one of the existing cottages while a new home was constructed. The City Ordinance has a provision in it that by conditional use permit (C.U.P.) it allows two dwellings on a property so a person can live in one while a new house is being constructed as long as the one that is being lived in does not adversely impact the location of the new house. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 3 of 14 Nielsen noted the lot line between the two properties could be realigned making the 21285 property larger. They could get variances for lot area, width and setbacks subject to the three nonconforming cottages being removed. The guarantee they would have would be R-1A setbacks. He stated if, for example, the applicants obtained variances using the 2014 house plan they would have one year to use them. Prior to the end of the year they could apply for a C.U.P. allowing them to temporarily have two dwellings on one lot and that would be good for one year. That would give the applicants time to speak with a real estate professional to talk about what, if any, benefits they would get out of doing what they are considering. Nielsen reiterated staff does not recommend the spot zoning. He explained if the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council were agreeable to creating the new lot line staff recommends it be subject to the removal of the cottages. An option to that would be to move the one on the smaller lot into compliance with the R-1A setbacks. Peter Lehman, 21265 Radisson Road, stated their 2014 application included two requests. One was for a lot line revision between the two lots they own outside of the context of building a new home. As part of that they proposed removing two of the three cottages. The second request was for a zoning change. They thought it was the appropriate time to ask for that. Mr. Lehman explained their most important goal is to reduce the nonconformity of their properties especially in the case of the nonconforming use. The proposed lot line revision would make their properties more consistent with neighboring properties. They would remove a driveway as a matter of course to help facilitate the process. They have a driveway very near to the corner; less than the 50 feet the Code requires. They also want to guarantee clearly defined and legal buildable areas for current and future owners of the two parcels. They want to eliminate uncertainty. He clarified that is not a hard and fast goal but it is their preference. He noted the official amendment to their request is they would remove both cottages on 5625 and 5635 Merry Lane. The three cottages located closest to the public access are theirs. They would keep what they refer to as “the log cabin” on 21285 Radisson Road. He explained they have been “chipping” away at some of the recommendations Director Nielsen made in response to their 2014 request on their own initiative. After they came back from vacation in August 2014 the zebra mussel crisis hit. In response to the discovery of zebra mussels the public access to Christmas Lake was closed. Property owners had to take their boats out of the water. A turbidity barrier was placed around their and two of their neighbors lakeshore and was left there over the winter. That made it difficult for them to consider selling their property. He then explained the lights from vehicles traveling on Highway 7 shine over the concrete barrier. The log cabin blocks that light from shining onto his 21265 yard and beach. The cabin significantly blocks the light pollution. The trees on his property do not block all of the light pollution. Traffic on Highway 7 also generates a tremendous amount of noise. He noted there is a 10-foot concrete wall adjacent to Highway 7 and his property. It would be impossible to live there without the wall. He reiterated their zoning change request is a low priority for them. He stated from his perspective he thought it would be appropriate to apply the R-1C standards to his proposed 20,000 square foot plus lots. He thought it would be better to have the lots be conforming to R-1C zoning than nonconforming to R-1A CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 4 of 14 zoning. He also thought making the zoning change in conjunction with the lot line rearrangement made sense. He reiterated their request is for a lot line revision. They want to keep the two homes; one on 21265 Radisson Road and one on 21285 Radisson Road. The other two structures would be demolished. They would also remove a driveway. They would deed as requested drainage and utility easements for the new lots. He asked the Planning Commission to consider their request for rezoning the two properties to R-1C. He noted his neighbor who lives at 21235 Radisson Road, Scott Olson, supports reducing the nonconformities of the Lehmans’ properties and removing a couple of dwellings. He clarified they would not be removing any trees as part of what they have proposed. He stated they have already done quite a bit of landscaping to their property. They spent $15,000 on landscaping and putting in 15 evergreen trees 6 – 8 feet tall along Merry Lane last fall. They have already obtained a tree preservation plan for the area where one of the two structures to be removed is located. They still need to do one for the site of the other that would be removed. He displayed a graphic from the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan which shows the proposed land use for his property is 1 – 2 units per acre. Their proposal would be consistent with the Comp Plan. He stated their neighbors are Deephaven and Highway 7 to the north, to the west there is an outlot for the Christmas Shores development, to the east is Scott Olson’s property as well as some residential homes where the old Christmas Lake hotel used to be and at the end of that development it is zoned R-1C. Mr. Olson’s property is approximately 17,000 square feet in area; it is smaller than the size of his proposed lots. Mr. Olson had been granted variances and permits to build a relatively large house a number of years ago. He displayed a photograph of the view if standing on the east side of the 21285 Radisson Road structure on Merry Lane looking down Highway 7. A person can see about one mile of Highway 7 from there. The headlights from vehicles are constantly arcing across his property. He then displayed a photo of the canopy lights at the gas station along Highway 7. He also displayed various views of where shadows fall and how the log cabin blocks some light pollution. It blocks light from hitting two bedroom windows on the first level his home. He displayed copies of landscape plans and highlighted what has been done to date. Lastly he displayed a copy of Mr. Olson’s letter in support of what the Lehmans are proposing. Mr. Lehman clarified that at this time they are just requesting a lot line revision. Mr. Lehman stated he and his wife are risk adverse and noted that next year they will have three children in college. One of his children is finishing their last year of high school now. They can start thinking about downsizing their living space. They have no firm plans about what they intend to do in the future. They don’t know how long the sale process would take if they decide to sell. They thought the simple thing to do at this time was the simple lot line revision; they are done frequently. He then stated if they wanted to build a new house the benefits that the 21285 property would provide would be significant. He went on to state there is a provision in the Code that allows for certain nonconforming structures to remain if, for example, they are historical in nature. They are not ready to consider that at this time. Commissioner Bean stated the lot line rearrangement would give the Lehmans two buildable lots. Mr. Lehman stated Director Nielsen has termed the smaller of the existing lots to be grossly substandard. Bean then stated combining the two lots would eliminate the need for variances. It is his understanding CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 5 of 14 that is not acceptable because the Lehmans’ want two buildable lots. Mr. Lehman stated that would not make sense for them to do that. It may for someone else. At this time they believe their best option is to reconfigure the two lots; they would be big flat lots. They are valuable to him and he would like to stay on one of them if possible. Mr. Lehman stated he had worked with surveyors to legally define the buildable areas of the proposed two lots as an alternative. In response to a question from Commissioner Riedel, Director Nielsen stated lot area and lot width variances would be required. The existing home currently complies with the side yard setback but would require a variance if the lot line was rearranged. Mr. Lehman stated shoreland district regulations require a total of 30 feet in side yard setbacks. Chair Davis stated this would not set a precedent for a small lot because Mr. Olson’s lot is very small. Commissioner Bean asked how many other residential lots along Radisson Road are substandard. Director Nielsen stated just the one on the east side [Mr. Olson’s property]. The others are basically R-1A lots and that is why the zoning district boundary was drawn the way it was. Director Nielsen stated that if the two existing were combined that lot would be about 10 percent greater than the 40,000 square feet of area required in the R-1A zoning district. He stated to put two houses on that size area is a stretch. He noted that he thought the Planning Commission’s recommendation in 2014 was quite generous in terms of allowing the lot line to be rearranged. Director Nielsen reiterated that in order for the Lehman’s to get variances they have to submit some type of plan. If they are not ready to do that the attorney suggested that maybe the lot line rearrangement is a little premature. Commissioner Bean stated that what is being asked for is essentially an economic objective. That is not grounds for a variance. Director Nielsen explained that for the Planning Commission’s 2014 recommendation the Commission weighed how the City would gain against what the applicant would gain. The City would gain the elimination of nonconforming uses and the elimination of nonconforming structures. The two lots would have complied with the hardcover restrictions. He stated if two of the dwellings were removed and the third moved into compliance with R-1A setbacks then maybe the lot division would make sense. He noted the City’s goal is to bring nonconformities into conformity. Commissioner Bean asked if allowing the variances would be a reasonable compromise in exchange for doing that. Nielsen confirmed that. Nielsen stated the very hardline approach would be to not allow that. He noted he thought the Planning Commission’s recommendation in 2014 was reasonable. Commissioner Riedel asked how defining buildable areas is different from variances. Would that be a binding commitment? Director Nielsen stated that is what is being asked for and noted that both he and the city attorney do not recommend doing that. That would tie the hands of a future council. It could legislatively be done by rezoning the property and a future council could reverse that. Director Nielsen stated that some of the buffering benefits Mr. Lehman wants to keep from the log cabin could be accomplished by bringing the cabin into setback compliance. It would still block lights from vehicles. The best way to accomplish that would be to plant more trees. Trees will grow taller but the cabin would always be the same height. Trees also soften noise. The applicant could keep the log cabin if CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 6 of 14 it was brought into compliance with the R-1A standards assuming the Planning Commission and Council approve the lot line rearrangement and the variances that go along with that. Commissioner Maddy stated the City has let people build on lots that are not completely conforming. He asked Director Nielsen how nonconforming things can be. Director Nielsen explained the Code states that for existing lots of record to be buildable they have to meet 70 percent of the area requirement and 70 percent of the width requirement and then structures have to meet setbacks. There are existing lots of record that do not meet that with existing houses on them. The houses can be expanded as long as the expansion is consistent with the setback requirements including height. To increase the height of the new portion of the house that has to comply with setback requirements. Commissioner Maddy asked if Mr. Olson’s property and home met the 70 percent requirements. Director Nielsen stated it was an existing lot of record with a house on it and Mr. Olson added on to the house. Someone in the audience clarified a new house was built on that lot. Maddy asked when that house was built. Someone responded in 2002. Mr. Lehman stated they did a major remodel of their home around 2000 / 2001. Mr. Olson took down a garage and substandard cottage and built as big of a house as he could on his lot. On the side of the house facing the Lehman’s it is a walkout three story house and on the other side it is two stories. Director Nielsen stated it is his recollection that the old structure on the Olson property was more nonconforming than the new house. Director Nielsen stated a restriction was placed on the variance in terms of sight lines; it was built further back from the lakeshore to preserve sight lines for the Lehmans’ house. Mr. Lehman stated they worked with Mr. Olson on making that happen and noted that they can no longer see the sunrise. In response to a comment from Chair Davis, Mr. Lehman stated they have owned the property for 30 years. Chair Davis stated it appears to her that the lots around that lake appear to be triangular in shape. Mr. Lehman stated that in considering their request he asked the Planning Commission to think about what would happen if he asked for the inverse of his current request. That is, what if he had two 20,000 square foot lots with two houses on them regardless of how far from the roadway they were located and asked to create the lots as they exist today and build two more houses on the lots. He assumes he would be laughed out of the Council Chamber. He does not understand why there is resistance to what they want to do. From his vantage point they have only asked for what they need. They are resource constrained. He then stated they would like to move the ball forward and sometime in the next 3 – 5 years there will be some type of change; things will not remain status quo. Commissioner Bean stated to the degree that precedent would be set there may be other residents who would want to do the same thing. That is why there is reluctance to spot zoning. Mr. Lehman asked the Commissioners not to get hung up on the zoning because it is a low priority for them. He then stated if any single-family property in Shorewood had three habitable dwellings on it he thought the Planning Commission would be accommodating to reasonable offers to remove two of the habitable dwellings. There are four sewer connections in total on the two existing lots. He commented that they have rented out the cottages in the past and could do so again. He does not think Mr. Olson would like that because the renters would use his beach which is right next to Mr. Olson’s very small beach. He noted doing what CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 7 of 14 is proposed would help eliminate a nonconforming use; that is substantial. Bean concurred with that. Mr. Lehman stated he does not think approving what they have asked to do would set a significant precedent other than a zoning change. Bean then stated from his perspective if it was not for the opportunity to mitigate the nonconformities the variances would not be up for discussion. There is no hardship or restriction that keeps them from making reasonable use of their property. Mr. Lehman clarified they are not asking for a new lot; they have two lots of record with a total of four dwellings on them. Mr. Lehman noted that property owners often ask for lot line revisions to clean things up. He stated their request may be different because of the order of magnitude and their circumstances are special. Maybe if there were not four houses in total on the two lots they may not be asking for what they are. He noted they would like to work with the City in an evolutionary fashion to make what they want happen. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Lehman to talk a little more about timing. He noted a variance is good for one year. Mr. Lehman stated it is his understanding that if they have a lot with a dwelling on it and use it as a single-family use it has some rights that are beneficial. Once there is no longer a residence on a parcel “all bets are off”. If there is no dwelling and the lot is substandard it basically cannot be built upon. Therefore, it is important for them to maintain a dwelling on the lot. He noted that the cabins are worth $40,000 – $50,000 each. It will cost him $20,000 each to have them taken down. He stated he can put $20,000 into them to reroof them and fix them up. He could rent them and make $10,000 a year on each of them. He clarified it is not their goal to be landlords. He stated they believe that if the lots can be rearranged as proposed and if the dwelling on the existing smaller lot remains there then when they or someone else comes before a Planning Commission sometime in the future with a proposal that Commission would be receptive. They are willing to take that risk. They do not want the zoning request to prevent moving forward with the lot line rearrangement. He stated they thought the zoning change would make sense for them and future owners but if the Commission does not want to recommend that it is fine. The rezoning is not a priority for them. Commissioner Riedel stated from his perspective the crux of the Lehmans’ argument is risk reduction. He asked why the current proposal reduces risk. It would result in there being one nonconforming structure on one lot and it would be up to staff and a future Planning Commission to recommend approval of variances at that time. There is a risk with doing that. There is also a risk with doing nothing until the Lehmans or another owner of the property is ready to build. He thought a reasonable thing to do at this time would be to do nothing. Mr. Lehman concurred that the least risk would be to do nothing now. He noted he has thought about that scenario. He stated the one nonconforming structure would still be habitable. He then stated it is his understanding that as long as a lot is recognized by the City and recorded with Hennepin County it would be considered as a lot of record. Director Nielsen stated he would research that and explained that it is his understanding that a lot of record has always been those that were in existence when the Zoning Code was adopted. Mr. Lehman stated the Code includes a definition for what is considered a lot of record and a definition for a lot; they are two different things. A lot of record existed before the Code was adopted or it is a lot that the City deems to be a lot provided it has the required green space. He noted he does not know what “required green space” means. Nielsen clarified it meets the setbacks. Mr. Lehman stated the way he interprets things is a lot of record was either in existence before the Code was adopted or one that Council approved. He questioned why the lot line rearrangement, if approved, would not keep both of the lots as lots of record. Nielsen stated he thought that was a little bit irrelevant because the provision that applies to CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 8 of 14 lots of record (i.e.; lots that existed before the Code was adopted) defines them as being buildable if they are under separate ownership and meet the 70 percent requirements. Even if the City approves this it would not meet 70 percent of the area requirement for the R-1A zoning district. He thought lot versus lot of record is a moot point; if Council approves the lot line rearrangement the two reconfigured lots would be lots. Mr. Lehman explained the reason they are willing to take the risk to have the lot line rearranged is things can change. They think that ultimately there should be two lots and that it makes sense to reduce the nonconformity. They should not be prohibited from achieving that goal. There is nothing in the Zoning Code that should prohibit a property owner from reducing nonconformity. The level of that seems to be a “horse trade” from his perspective. Chair Davis stated if the lot line rearrangement was approved and if the zoning remains R-1A then from her vantage point the Lehmans would have to live with that. Director Nielsen clarified setback variances would have to be granted along with that. Director Nielsen explained that in 2006 legislation was passed that would allow a property owner to rebuild a nonconforming structure if it burned down or was demolished. That left cities’ leverage with the zoning tools they have; in this case it would be variances and subdivision. The applicant could try to prove that the log cabin has some historical value. He thought it would be better to move it into compliance with the R-1A standards. Someone else would have to deal with reconfigured 21285 lot in the future. Chair Davis commented that there has been some clever architectural design done for structures on very small lots. Director Nielsen stated the size of the proposed Track B would be 90 feet wide. To build a house on it the setback would be 60 feet (10 on the side and 50 on the side abutting the roadway) and there would have to be at least 30 feet of depth. Although it would be shallow it would be buildable. Mr. Lehman stated a house could easily be 100 feet long. Nielsen stated it could be longer than that provided that a longer house would still allow for hardcover compliance. Chair Davis stated skinny houses have been built along Old Channel Bay. Mr. Lehman stated when he came to City Hall the night before the last Planning Commission meeting [in 2014] with a plan for a 30-foot-wide house which was termed “the barn” he did not submit it because he was not going to have a barn built. They came back with a plan for a 45-foot-wide house which was more in scale with the neighborhood. He then stated that from his perspective people are allowed to build on substandard lots provided they meet the setback requirements. Director Nielsen explained if the Lehmans were willing to move the log cabin into the buildable area of an R-1A lot that building could be added on to as long as it stayed within the 30 foot depth and the 120 foot length. That would be the least risky thing they could do. Mr. Lehman stated his understanding of the Zoning Code states that if, for example, there are two houses 20 feet from the roadway then a third house could be built with a setback that is the average of the setback for the two houses. Director Nielsen clarified that is true as long as those houses are not owned by the Lehmans. They would have to be two adjoining lots. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 9 of 14 Mr. Lehman stated if the 21285 lot was held in separate ownership and if the log cabin remains where it is, say for example 20 feet from the roadway, then 50 feet plus 20 feet divided by 2 results in a setback of 35 feet along Merry Lane. Director Nielsen stated that could be requested. He also stated that would be all the more reason to move the log cabin into conformity. Mr. Lehman stated it would be better for him to keep the log cabin in its current location because it would grant him an option included in the Zoning Code that would allow the 35 foot setback. Nielsen clarified if the lot line is moved the Lehmans would not be able to build another house with an average setback based on the Lehmans substandard log cabin. Director Nielsen explained he spoke with the city attorney earlier in the day about the request. The attorney indicated that considering everything the request may be premature on the Lehmans’ part. It may be better to sell the properties to a builder. He reiterated the Lehmans could get two years out of the process. It would give them time to work with a realtor to determine what the value of the properties is. Mr. Lehman noted they have come before the Planning Commission with their best effort and they would like the Commission to consider it. They believe their request is reasonable. There are a lot of different scenarios; ones they have likely thought about. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:44 P.M. Chair Davis stated that she also thinks the Lehmans’ request is premature. She then stated that from her perspective as a resident unless someone wants to build a long, skinny house on the reconfigured 21285 lot she thought someone would like both properties. Combining the two lots would result in a spectacular piece of property. She would hate to rearrange the lot line and then have a new owner come to recombine the lots. The applicants have not submitted a building plan and seem to be hesitant to make a decision about what they want to do. Commissioner Bean stated he thought the only reason to approve the lot line rearrangement is in exchange for nonconformity mitigation. He noted he would support the 2014 recommendation from staff in order to accomplish that. Absent that, he does not believe there is a rationale for approving it. Chair Davis asked if there are people living in the cottages now. Mr. Lehman responded no. Commissioner Maddy stated that Mr. Olson, or someone else, pushed the reconstruction of a house on 21325 Radisson Road yet the property was less than half the size of the lot area requirement of the R-1A zoning district. On the surface it appears that the Lehmans have two similar situations on their properties now. But, through common ownership and the extreme substandard 21285 Radisson Road lot the City would be setting precedent all throughout the City by approving the lot line rearrangement to try and flex other rules. He is not sure that would be good public policy. If only the lot line rearrangement were approved it would still result in there being two nonconforming structures. The existing house on 21265 would become nonconforming with regard to setback because of the change in the lot size. 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. There was a question about whether or not there is a time period for which the cottages need to be removed. Commissioner Johnson stated he thought it was 60 days in 2014. Director Nielsen stated in CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 10 of 14 2014 the staff recommendation was within 60 days. There was nothing magical about that time period; it was just a deadline. The lot line rearrangement could be recorded as soon as Council approves it. There would have to be a cash security to guarantee that whatever conditions were imposed would be done within whatever time period is set. Davis seconded. Motion passed 3/2 with Davis and Maddy dissenting. Mr. Lehman asked for clarification on the recommendation. Chair Davis stated she thought the recommendation was approval for the lot line rearrangement including setback variances, the removal of two cabins within 60 days in keeping with the 2014 Planning Commission recommendation, cash security, and time period. Mr. Lehman asked if it meant to remove two or three structures. Chair Davis responded two. Someone else stated he thought it was three. Director Nielsen asked Commissioner Bean how many structures. Commissioner Bean stated his recommendation for removal was to be consistent with the 2014 recommendation by the Planning Commission which indicated two cabins to come down within 60 days and one can stay standing for up to one year. And the 2014 Planning Commission motion read: “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 noted that this will be considered by Council during its May 9, 2014, meeting. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 8:51 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY REGULATION Director Nielsen stated he had not sent out materials to the Planning Commission for this item and noted the proposed amendment was initiated by the City. He asked the Commission to open the Public Hearing and continue it until May 3, 2016, and he would have draft amendments available for that meeting. All of the amendments that will be considered were approved for the Mattamy Homes development project. The amendments were recommended by the City’s energy consultant. Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 8:54 P.M. Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a Zoning Code text amendment regarding alternative energy regulation to the Planning Commission’s May 3, 2016, meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Davis continued the Public Hearing at 8:55 P.M. 3. Minor Subdivision Applicant: Tom Wartman Location: 26985 Edgewood Road CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 11 of 14 Director Nielsen noted the applicant’s wife had some health issues so he was not able to be in attendance. Nielsen explained Tom Wartman owns the property located at 26985 Edgewood Road. The property is about two acres in size. He is proposing to divide the property into two single-family residential lots. The property drains across the site west to east to a storm drain that picks up the water in a low area and carries it to the other side of Edgewood Road. The city engineer has indicated that is not a reliable outlet. The houses that would be built on the lots would have to be located at such an elevation so there can be one foot of freeboard between the overflow. Staff has been told that it is likely that the City will receive an application for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards in order to bring the elevations up to the level desired so the builder can build the style of houses they want to build. That would be part of a separate application. The zoning on the property is R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Family. Both lots would meet the area and width requirements. Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision subject to the applicant granting the City drainage and utility easements of 10 feet around each lot and recording the subdivision and easements within 30 days of receiving the resolution approving the subdivision. Commissioner Riedel asked if the city engineer had any negative comments about things such as drainage. Director Nielsen explained that for the 2013 consideration of this same item the city engineer and the applicant worked everything out. Riedel moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Tom Wartman for his property located at 26985 Edgewood Road subject to the five conditions listed in the January 11, 2013, staff report noting the first two conditions must be completed before the application going to the City Council for consideration but no later than 30 days from April 19, 2016, and the park dedication fee is now $6,500. Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Director Nielsen stated twice in the last week the issue of food trucks has come up. It has never come up before. Shorewood does not allow food trucks on commercial or residential property. Someone could apply for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to have a food truck on a commercial property. The City received a request from someone who would like to rent the picnic pavilion in Freeman Park and bring in a food truck for an event that would be held there. The Planning Commission may want to add food trucks to its work program. Commissioner Johnson stated Minnewashta Elementary School had five food trucks at its event on April 22. Director Nielsen noted the City has allowed food trucks for public events. Chair Davis noted that Kowalski’s had a food truck at the Arctic Fever event. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 12 of 14 Commissioner Bean asked what the difference is between a food truck and a catering truck. Director Nielsen stated typically a caterer has a small van and they bring the food into a facility and prepare it. The food purchased from a food truck is usually prepared and sold on site. Bean suggested the discussion about the food truck happen soon; there is an event planned for October 1 and the intent is to have a food truck. Chair Davis agreed that the Commission should discuss food trucks soon. She stated allowing them could make park events more popular. Food trucks are very popular now. Director Nielsen stated he would add the food truck topic to a future agenda. Nielsen then stated the other item that has come up is vacation home by owner. The City has rental housing code that allows people to rent their property out. It does not specify the minimum time it has to be rented out for. The code was intended for long term rental. There has been one property that has been rented for vacation. Four families stayed there and they were up very late at night for the most of one week. The City received a complaint about that so staff spoke with the property owners. He suggested the Commission discuss tightening the code up for weekly or week end rental. The owners of the property live in the house part of the year and rent it out a number of weeks during the summer. Commissioner Johnson asked if the discussion can be postponed until after the Ryder Cup is over. Commissioner Bean stated he had read that a large city on the west coast requires rentals be at least thirty days. Yet, the law stated that after someone stayed in a house for 30 days the renter was deemed an occupant and could not be evicted. So a renter would not let the owners back in their house. Director Nielsen stated there are probably more property owners who do the vacation rentals than the City is aware of. Nielsen then stated earlier in the year Council updated the document about the expectations and roles of City Council liaisons to advisory commissions and commission liaisons to City Council. He had provided the Commission with a copy of the updated document. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is the continued public hearing from tonight regarding alternative energy regulation slated for the May 3, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. He suggested the Commission discuss either food trucks or vacation home by owner. Chair Davis recommended food trucks be discussed first. Chair Davis noted she has a great deal of information about vacation rentals because she did that for a number of years. She stated she thought both topics have some urgency. She suggested the Commission discuss personal hockey rinks before next winter. She stated some of them are nice and some are extremely unsightly. Those with boards may not comply with the City’s fence ordinance. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 13 of 14 Chair Davis stated she was the liaison to the City Council March 28, 2016, meeting. During that meeting the topic of the proposed artificial turf for a new playfield in Badger Park was discussed. It was the first time she had heard about crumb rubber. She asked Director Nielsen to comment on crumb rubber. Director Nielsen explained that after that meeting staff learned of bills passing through the Minnesota legislature that would place a moratorium on construction of new artificial turf fields that contain crumb rubber until the State could do a study on crumb rubber. It would also require posting signs that inform people when crumb rubber is used present in existing fields. Staff has been told that the same legislation was proposed last year but it did not advance. The plan is to continue to move forward with the construction of the playfield. The vendor the City plans to use to construct the field has been asked to identify infill alternatives to crumb rubber as a contingency. Any alternative would be more expensive. There is a tremendous amount of information stating there is no evidence that crumb rubber causes health issues. What raised concerns was the airing of an emotional story on ESPN of a woman who thought she contracted cancer because of playing on fields containing crumb rubber. Commissioner Bean stated it was a player on the US Olympic female soccer team. Chair Davis stated there is a cancer cluster in the south amongst girl lacrosse players. Canada is going to ban its use. The use of it is very controversial. She would not want the City to become involved in a law suit if just one child becomes ill from playing on a field containing it. Nor, would she want the City to have to take it out after putting it in. She stated there is lead involved. She asked what happens to the water table. She thought it bears some scrutiny. Director Nielsen stated there has been a lot of scrutiny. The States of Connecticut and Massachusetts both did studies of it. They could not find any scientific evidence of there being any adverse effects from crumb rubber. The crumb rubber is the infill that is kicked up when the field is played on. Commissioner Johnson stated the vendors for artificial turf have been “slinging mud” at each other to make their product appear to be the safe one. Council Liaison Sundberg stated that during its March 28 meeting Council, with reservation, granted concept stage and development stage approval for Oppidan Investment Company’s proposed Shorewood Senior Living project. There are a number of concerns that must be addressed; traffic is a serious concern now. There was discussion about closing the exit off of Highway 7 on to Chaska Road. She then stated there are two senior living projects proposed within a short distance from each other. But, they are the developers’ choices. She went on to state that although the Oppidan project is being wedged into the area there is not much else that could be done with the property. Director Nielsen explained that part of that project is a proposal for tax increment financing (TIF) to offset some of the cost for soil remediation and the extension of Shorewood watermain to the area. Administrator Joynes had spoken with Oppidan representatives about contributing $200,000 more than it had originally proposed for soil remediation. The City would use that money to put in a stormwater management pipe to replace the ditch. The power lines would also be buried. That would provide more room for landscaping. Commissioner Bean asked if there has been any decision made about possibly constructing a sidewalk. Director Nielsen stated that is still being talked about and commented that he does not think a trail along Chaska Road is in the Trail Implementation Plan. Bean stated if the access from Highway 7 to Chaska Road is closed then a sidewalk along Chaska Road would be less critical. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 19, 2016 Page 14 of 14 Council Liaison Sundberg stated Great Plains Institute was the firm that did the alternative energy study for the City. That firm is using Shorewood as an example of a forward thinking city. The thinking is trending toward believing that the energy issues need to be addressed starting at the grass roots. Sundberg noted that she would not be able to be at the next Planning Commission meeting. • SLUC Chair Davis stated she thought the next Sensible Land Use Coalition session was about park dedication fees. Director Nielsen stated he would attend it and report back. • Other 8. ADJOURNMENT Maddy moved, Davis seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 19, 2016, at 9:20 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder