Loading...
PC-10-04-16 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 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; and, Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for October 4, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  September 20, 2016 Maddy moved, Bean seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Johnson abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT Applicant: Marc and Kerri Hexum Location: 5205 Howards Point Road Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She explained the Planning Commission is composed of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) and variances to build on a substandard lot for Marc and Kerri Hexum, 5205 Howards Point Road. Director Nielsen explained Marc and Kerri Hexum own the property located at 5205 Howards Point Road. The Hexums propose to demolish the existing house and garage on the property and build a new home with an attached garage. The subject property is quite substandard with respect to its R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. Instead of 40,000 square feet in area, the lot is only 13,534 square feet. Similarly, the buildings on the property do not comply with any of the R-1A/S setback CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 2 of 13 requirements and the amount of impervious surface on the site is 51.2 percent, whereas the limit is 25 percent. Their proposal requires a C.U.P. for construction on a substandard lot and four variances: 1) lot area; 2) lot width; 3) front yard setback; and, 4) maximum impervious surface in excess of 25 percent. There is a lot of pavement in front of the existing house and there is additional pavement around the house. The applicants’ proposal would drastically reduce the hardcover. It will go from 51.2 percent to 28.2 percent. He thought that would be the most drastic decrease in hardcover the City has seen. With regard to the analysis about substandard lots of record, Nielsen explained Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(3) of the Shorewood Zoning Code provides criteria for building on a substandard lot of record (a lot that existed prior to current zoning requirements and does not meet area or width requirements). The Code states that a lot is considered to be buildable if it complies with the following criteria: 1. The lot must be in separate ownership from adjoining properties. The Hexums do not own the lots on either side of theirs. 2. The lot must meet at least 70 percent of the width and area requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. This requires a lot to be 84 feet wide and 28,000 square feet in area in the R- 1A/S zoning district. The subject property is two feet short of the 84-foot width requirement. The lot is 14,466 square feet short of the area requirement. 3. With the exception of a 15-foot variance for the front of the building, the proposed building complies with the required setbacks of the zoning district. The existing home is eight feet short of the side yard setback requirement, 22 feet short of the front yard requirement and 10 feet short of the rear setback requirement. The proposal would make drastic reduction in the nonconformity. 4. The floor area of structures cannot exceed 30 percent of the area of the lot. Total hardcover cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot. Floor plans for the proposed home indicate that the home is within the 30 percent. Proposed total hardcover (impervious surface) is 28.2 percent, versus the current coverage of 51.2 percent. He noted that the existing home could be enlarged by adding additional space above the existing footprint of the home. That would not improve the property with respect to better conformance with the Zoning Code. With regard to the analysis about the variances, he explained Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. He reviewed how the applicant’s request conforms to the criteria for variances: 1. Despite the substandard width of the lot, the applicants have designed the new home to improve the property with respect to side yard and lakeshore setbacks and a drastic reduction of hardcover. 2. The applicants’ “practical difficulties” are not economic in nature or the result of their actions. The existing lot of record and the existing home and garage existed prior to current zoning standards. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 3 of 13 3. Granting the variance does not confer any special privilege on the applicant that would be denied to other properties. Presumably similar consideration would be given to any owner who is willing to increase the conformity of a substandard property to the extent proposed by this applicant. 4. The proposed home does not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood. There are structures on other properties along Howards Point Road that are closer than the applicants’ structures. The applicants’ proposal would improve what currently exists on their property. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The proposed house and garage are very much in scale with the size of the existing lot. 6. The following provides a comparison of the zoning requirements, the existing site and the applicants’ proposed plans. R-1A/S Requirement Existing Proposed Front Yard Setback 50 feet 28 feet 35 feet Side Yard Setback Total 30 feet, no less than 10 feet 11 / 11 feet 12.5 / 20 feet Rear Yard Setback 44.2 feet* 34 feet 44.2 feet* Percent Impervious 25% maximum 51.2% 28.2% Floor Area Ratio 30% maximum unknown less than 30% * The rear yard setback takes advantage of the average lakeshore setback provision for the properties abutting each side of the subject property. Nielsen noted that based upon the analysis of the case, staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. and variances. Kerri Hexum, 5205 Howards Point Road, noted she and her husband Marc lived in the area their entire lives. They grew up in the Cities of Excelsior and Deephaven. It has been their dream to live next to the lake. She also noted they have the smallest lot in the neighborhood and are therefore building the smallest house in the neighborhood. She stated that they believe that what they have proposed is reasonable and noted that they would have liked to build a larger home and a three car garage. Commissioner Riedel stated from his perspective the strictest interpretation of the Zoning Code would allow the applicants to rebuild the structure with the same exact footprint of the existing structure. He asked if that would be an option. Ms. Hexum stated they wanted to build back farther from the water so they could have a larger yard. Riedel stated the significant reduction in impervious surface is appreciated. He thought that is the most compelling part of the proposal. Commissioner Johnson stated there is nothing in the description about the heights of the buildings. He asked if there is any concern about the peaks and how close they are to the setbacks. Director Nielsen responded no and noted the building heights are within the 35 foot and 2.5 stories restrictions. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M. Chair Davis noted she agreed with Commissioner Riedel and stated the proposed improvement is positive from every perspective. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 4 of 13 Commissioner Bean stated there are plats around the City that were created in the early 1900s that are very different than what the City would consider appropriate today. He then stated that what has been proposed would make the best use of an existing home site on a vastly substandard lot. He noted he thought the applicants’ proposal is very reasonable. Commissioner Riedel stated the proposal would improve upon all of the nonconformities. The impervious surface would be reduced significantly. Those are reasons to look at the proposal favorably. He noted the variances being asked for are significant. He reiterated from his perspective the strictest interpretation of the Zoning Code would allow the applicants to rebuild the structure with the same exact footprint as the existing structure. He cautioned the Planning Commission against considering the request too lightly. Commissioner Bean stated that in general the proposal is consistent with a variance of similar size in Minnetonka Manor that the Planning Commission recommended approval of several months ago. That lot was platted in 1906. It was a sliver of a lot along a public street that becomes a private road. There have variances granted over the years for very substandard lots that exist in the older parts of Shorewood. There is consistency in that even though the proposal does not come close to complying with all requirements the proposal is a significant improvement. He noted that if the applicants rebuilt on the existing footprints there would be more and greater variances than for what has been proposed. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of lot area, lot width, front yard setback, and impervious surface variances and a conditional use permit for new construction on a substandard lot for Marc and Kerri Hexum, 5205 Howards Point Road. Motion passed 5/0. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its October 24, meeting. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-1A, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO R-1C, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Applicant: Bryan Pike Location: 24845 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider a request to rezone properties from R-1A, Single-Family Residential to R-1C, Single-Family Residential for Bryan Pike for the properties located at 24845 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane. Director Nielsen explained Bryan Pike owns the properties located at 24845 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane. The properties are located in the R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning district. He has requested that they be rezoned to R-1C, Single-Family Residential which allows a smaller lot size; 20,000 versus 40,000 square feet. The properties are occupied by single-family homes. The Smithtown Road lot contains 42,697 square feet of area and the Club Lane lot contains 57,761 square feet. The lots are two of 12 lots that are bordered on the west, south and east by the new Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) planned unit development (PUD). To the north it is all R-1C zoning. Mr. Pike’s letter of request lists six reasons for his request. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 5 of 13 With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen noted that rezoning of the two subject properties, by themselves, is considered to be spot zoning, which is generally not considered to be good planning. Staff has analyzed the six reasons listed in Mr. Pike’s request letter and thought an examination of the surrounding properties and zoning was appropriate. The MCC development consists of single-family homes on lots of varying sizes that are to be developed with R-1C zoning standards as a basis. Lot sizes are smaller for the MCC development and the setbacks are R-1C based. The overall density for MCC is two units per acre because of the open space contributed as part of the project. The current zoning map for the area shows that Mr. Pike’s lots plus the other 10 lots form an approximately 11-acre “pocket” of land that is surrounded by land developed to R-1C density/standards. Seven of the 10 other lots do not meet the 40,000 square-foot area requirement for the R-1A District. Four of them do not meet the 120-foot width requirement. Many of the lots in the neighborhood do not comply with R-1A setback requirements. Essentially, all of the lots would benefit from the reduced setbacks of the R-1C District: 35 feet front yard setback versus 50 feet; 40 feet rear yard setback versus 50 feet. Any rezoning should be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. The Planning Advisory Committee established for the study of the MCC redevelopment recommended that the Club Lane area could be developed at a higher density than its current “minimum density” classification. Rezoning of this area would make it consistent with a “low to medium” land use classification. It is Mr. Pike’s intent to maximize the redevelopment potential of the two properties. A preliminary examination of his two lots suggests that four lots could be achieved with R-1C zoning. What would go along with that is an upgrade of Club Lane. The right-of-way (ROW) for this street is substantially substandard; the ROW is only 30 feet wide. Any subdivision of the Pike properties should include the 20 feet of ROW width necessary to bring it to the City standard of 50 feet wide as well as a turn-around. Nielsen noted that staff does not recommend rezoning of the Pike properties by itself. Staff does recommend that the Club Lane “pocket” of 12 lots, which includes the Pike properties, be rezoned to R- 1C, Single-Family Residential. He explained that would necessitate a new notice being sent out, plus a separate public hearing. If the Planning Commission is in agreement, this would be scheduled for the Planning Commission’s November 1 meeting. Chair Davis noted she would support what staff has proposed and stated that she was a member of the Planning Advisory Committee. She asked if the owners of the other 10 properties would have a say in the rezoning proposed by staff. Director Nielsen explained they would be notified of new public hearing and would have an opportunity to comment on the possible rezoning of the 12 lots. Commissioner Riedel stated all of those property owners may not want the rezoning. Commissioner Maddy stated he assumes the applicant has paid the fee for the application he submitted. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Director Nielsen suggested continuing this Public Hearing to the November meeting and then taking up the rezoning of the other 10 parcels at that time. Commissioner Maddy asked if the applicant is willing to give up his individual request and then join forces with the other property owners and file a new application to rezone all 12 properties. Nielsen clarified that the City can initiate the additional rezoning of the other 10 lots. Bryan Pike, 24845 Smithtown Road, introduced himself. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 6 of 13 Commissioner Johnson stated in Mr. Pike’s request letter he states “I have discussed this request with xx of the 12 property owners and there is a general consensus to move ahead with this.” Mr. Pike clarified that by general consensus he means those people he was able to make contact with on a weekend when he went door to door to distribute a document stating what he wanted to do and why he wanted to do it. Mr. Pike explained that one of the property owners named Dave recommended even a higher density. He pointed to a map and which of the property owners seemed receptive to what he was requesting. The owner of the 5815 Club Lane property indicated he did not want higher density. He provided his phone number to those people that were not home that day and none of them called him back. In response to a comment from Commissioner Bean, Director Nielsen clarified that Club Lane would be upgraded at the time Mr. Pike subdivided his properties. The rezoning would not trigger that. Bean asked if the City would want to stipulate that as part of the rezoning. Nielsen explained that zoning cannot be conditioned; it is either acceptable or it is not. Nielsen noted upgrading of Club Lane when Mr. Pike’s properties are subdivided is stated in the staff report for this item and would be documented in the meeting minutes. Commissioner Bean stated should Council ultimately approve the rezoning of the 12 lots and if Mr. Pike applies for a subdivision he asked if Mr. Pike would have to give the additional 20 feet of ROW to Club Lane. Director Nielsen stated most likely because the lots on the east side of Club Lane by themselves do not have the capability of being re-divided. Bean asked Mr. Pike if he understands the implication that if he would subdivide his property that a condition of that would be giving the City 20 feet of ROW along his properties. Mr. Pike stated he had not considered that yet but it had crossed his mind. Bean then asked where the turnaround would come from. Director Nielsen responded the west side of Club Lane (Mr. Pike’s property). Chair Davis asked if Mr. Pike’s intent was to subdivide and then sell individual lots. Mr. Pike responded no. Mr. Pike stated the intent is to get as much money for the sale of their land as they can so they can take care of their parents in assisted living. Davis asked if Mr. Pike had received an offer to which he responded no. Mr. Pike stated over one year ago he had an offer on his property (24845 Smithtown Road) and noted that his father owns the 5810 Club Lane property. He explained the condition of the sale of Mr. Pike’s 24845 property was he had to get the property rezoned. He did nothing at that time. Commissioner Maddy asked if the City commonly requires a turnaround. He stated it was his recollection that the City got rid of a turnaround on Howards Point Road. Director Nielsen clarified there was not a turnaround there and explained those applicants had pavement adjacent to the street surface of Howards Point Road. That was on their property and it was basically their parking area. Maddy asked how the City decides which applicant needs a turnaround and which does not. Nielsen explained if the owner of the property on the point wanted to subdivide the property that would have required an expansion of ROW and some type of turnaround. Nielsen noted it usually goes with a subdivision and stated their probably should not be more lots along Club Lane without upgrading that roadway. Commissioner Bean stated the owners of the four properties (24905, 24945, 25005, and 25015 Smithtown Road) located to the west of 24845 Smithtown Road would not have much to gain by rezoning to R-1C. Director Nielsen stated if any of those owners wanted to join their lots and resubdivide the land they may be able to get more lots out of that. They would also have reduced front and rear yard setbacks. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 7 of 13 Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:36 P.M. John P. Rondeau, 5830 Club Lane, noted that he and his wife have lived in their home for about one year. Their property is located at the very south end of Club Lane. He stated that drivers turn around in their driveway almost every day. Their dogs run out on to their driveway and the drivers do not stop. He then stated he thought Club Lane needs major upgrades if the zoning change is approved and there needs to be a turnaround that would not be located close to their lot. If there is an option for a turnaround near the southeast of their property where the MCC development is that would maybe be acceptable; but, he doesn’t think that would be considered. He noted small children live on the 5815 Club Lane property which is located near the northeast corner of his property. Lauren Riedel, 5815 Club Lane, noted she has three small children. She stated currently Club Lane is wide enough for one car. If another car comes down the driver usually pulls onto the driveway at 5765 Club Lane because that has the most open space for drivers to pull in. There are a lot of drivers that travel fast down Club Lane because they think it is County Club Road. They don’t realize it is not until they get to the end where the roadway dips down at the Rondeau property. She then stated that when they purchased their property in 2002 their lot marker went into the middle of the road. If a turnaround had to be created at the south end of the 5810 Club Lane property they would end up having to give up some of their property. She commented that there are more vehicles traveling on Club Lane because one of the properties is for sale. She noted that the school bus stops at the intersection of Smithtown Road and Club Lane on the north; the roadway cannot accommodate the preschool bus coming down Club Lane to pick up her son. She commented that because of the MCC development there will end up being a lot more houses in their front yards. Aaron Hatz, 5765 Club Lane, stated when he brought his property in 2009 he assumed that someday the MCC property would be redeveloped. He noted that he liked to live in Shorewood because of the larger lot sizes; that is why he moved there. He stated he is not a huge fan of jamming more houses in his neighborhood; but, he does understand it. He noted his property is to the east of the 24845 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane properties. He also noted that lots of drivers turn around on his driveway. He stated Club Lane is extremely narrow and it is quite compact on the south end. He noted his property is not quite an acre in size so rezoning it to R-1C would not benefit him. Director Nielsen clarified the front and rear yard setbacks would be less with R-1C zoning. Mr. Hatz stated his home was run down and at some point he will want to do something with it. Director Nielsen asked if there is a no outlet sign at the entrance on to Club Lane from Smithtown Road. Mr. Hatz responded yes. Mr. Hatz stated about 10 cars a day turn turnaround on Club Lane. Ms. Riedel stated there is a no outlet sign. All drivers see is Club Lane and think it is Country Club Road. Chair Davis stated she also lives on a dead end roadway; she totally understands what people are talking about. Ms. Riedel stated Club Lane narrows by their house and there are trees between their home and the house on the 5795 Club Lane property just north of theirs. You cannot see onto the roadway until you are past the trees. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 8 of 13 Mr. Pike stated the density by joining and then resubdividing the two properties would result in three additional houses. He noted he lived there since 1965; he grew up there. He then stated there had been a service road that went to the old maintenance facility on the country club property. That is where the turnaround was before the country club site was sold to Mattamy Homes. There were always vehicles coming down the roadway because the maintenance workers needed to get to the facility. He went on to state he grew up used to that. Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M. Commissioner Bean stated Ms. Riedel noted that the lot lines go into Club Lane. He asked if the City has a platted street there or is it just an easement. Director Nielsen clarified the City’s map shows 30 feet of platted ROW. Bean then stated that along Star Lane directly across Smithtown Road it is all half-acre lots; it is R-1C zoning. Commissioner Riedel stated that in terms of joining the two Pike lots and then resubdividing the lot it is not clear that the four lots along Smithtown Road just to the west of 24845 Smithtown Road could be transformed into anything else. Properties 24845 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane could be transformed into more density. Commissioner Bean stated if the owners of the four lots (24905, 24945, 25005, and 25015 Smithtown Road) just to the west of 24845 Smithtown Road got together and reconfigured that area it may be possible to have a cul-de-sac there. Chair Davis stated if the 24845 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane properties were joined there would be enough property for three lots and a decent turnaround without encroaching on another property. Director Nielsen concurred. Commissioner Maddy stated he could not support spot zoning and thought this item should be continued to the November 1, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bean stated that independent of the spot zoning he thought it makes sense to look at rezoning in the context of all 12 properties even if just the 24845 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane properties were rezoned. He requested that for the November 1 continuation of this item that staff provide a graphic that shows the setbacks for all 12 lots and where the houses are positioned from the MCC properties for the 5815 and 5830 Club Lane properties. Chair Davis requested staff also provide a hypothetical sketch plan for Club Lane platted properly including the setbacks. Commissioner Riedel asked what input the owners of the other 10 properties have on the rezoning of their properties. Is it through the Public Hearing process? Director Nielsen confirmed that. Riedel then asked if that means that the property owner’s permission is not required. Nielsen stated yes. Commissioner Bean asked if all owners of the 12 properties were noticed of this Public Hearing. Director Nielsen stated he thought they were because they would have been within the 500-foot radius. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 9 of 13 Director Nielsen explained a notice will be sent out for the November 1 continued Public Hearing informing the property owners that the City is considering rezoning more than the two original Pike lots. Maddy moved, Riedel seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a request to rezone the properties located at 24585 Smithtown Road and 5810 Club Lane properties from R-1A, Single- Family Residential to R-1C, Single-Family Residential to the Planning Commission’s November 1, 2016, meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 3. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-2A, SINGLE AND TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL (continued from September 20, 2016) Applicant: John Benjamin Location: 24250 Smithtown Road Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M. She noted it was continued from September 20, 2016. Director Nielsen Noted the Planning Commission first considered John Benjamin’s request to rezone the property at 24250 Smithtown Road from R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential to C-1, General Commercial during its June 7 meeting. The request was continued to August 2 per the applicant’s request and again to September 20 and then again to October 4. He explained the property is located south of the Shorewood Public Works Department, west of the Public Safety Facility, and east of the Chocolate Store. Staff met with the applicant’s consultant and directed him to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study that had been adopted into the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. The Study is effectively the area plan for the vicinity in which the site is located. The Study recommended the site should be rezoned to R-C, Residential Commercial. The applicant wanted the C-1 zoning because that zoning would allow for a higher intensity use. They presented a couple of ideas of how it could be used but they did not have a definite plan. In a different proposal that Mr. Benjamin submitted, he proposed relocating City Hall and the Southshore Center to this area and relocating Badger Park. The City Hall campus area would have been redeveloped into some grand plan. That was turned down by the Shorewood Council. For the 24250 Smithtown Road site the applicant presented a sketch of how a single-story office building might work on the site. They also presented the idea of a motel/hotel facility for the property. There already is a tremendous amount of traffic on Country Road 19 which at times makes it difficult to get in and out of the area. He noted that the applicant was notified that this item would be on the agenda for this meeting but staff has not heard back from the applicant. Nielsen then noted that staff continues to recommend rezoning to R-C, Residential-Commercial. That would be acceptable and consistent with the Comp Plan. Staff does not recommend rezoning the property to C-1, General Commercial. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 10 of 13 Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending denial of the request from John Benjamin to rezone the property at 24250 Smithtown Road from R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential to C- 1, General Commercial. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 8:01 P.M. 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY Director Nielsen noted that he did not have much for this topic. He stated it was discussed during the Planning Commission’s September 20, 2016, meeting. During its September 26 meeting Council did approve an ordinance amending the Shorewood Rental Housing Code as it pertains to short-term rental of property as recommended by the Commission on September 20. He stated the hearing officer did rule in the City’s favor on the Wild Rose rental situation. He will send a copy of that ruling to the Commissioners. Chair Davis noted there has not been anyone there since before the Ryder Cup event. Nielsen stated the people renting that property were renting without a license and the hearing officer acknowledged that; that was in violation of the Rental Housing Code. The hearing officer also agreed with the City that it was a commercial use of the property and not a residential use. He explained that amendments similar to those made to the Rental Housing Code will be made to the Zoning Code. Staff was not able to get a public hearing notice out in time for this meeting; therefore, it will be on the November 1 meeting agenda. There will also be discussion about exceptions to the short- term rental provisions for event rentals and the process to do that for both the Rental Housing Code and Zoning Code. He does not think people renting their homes on a short-term basis during an event should have to get a rental housing license. Nielsen noted the City did not receive any complaints about Ryder Cup rentals. Chair Davis asked what would happen to the people who own property out on the islands who have been accustomed to renting their properties over the years. Director Nielsen stated currently they would be in violation for renting their properties for less than 30 days. Commissioner Johnson stated if, for example, a family has rented a house for a week and the City found out he asked if the people would be kicked out of the rental house for the rest of the week. Commissioner Bean stated he thought the person who signed the rental agreement or paid the check would be subject to the misdemeanor and fine. Director Nielsen clarified the owner would be subject to the fine and stated if the people renting the house are acting up they could be evicted; that would not be because of short-term rental. Chair Davis stated everything done in the City is based on complaints. If a person rents a house and is a good renter no one is going to complain to the City. Commissioner Maddy stated based on his experience the City would have a lot of flexibility with illegal occupancy. The City can choose what the appropriate course of action should be; that is how it is done in the City of Minneapolis. Commissioner Johnson asked what would happen if the City receives a complaint on a Friday at 6:00 P.M. and a member of City staff cannot be reached until the following Monday morning and the renters continue with their bad behaviors over the weekend. Director Nielsen noted that the police are available CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 11 of 13 to deal with disruptive behaviors and noted the police are making a concerted effort to help the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) member cities. Director Nielsen stated he thought the fine for Short-term rental violations should be more. Chair Davis suggested the Commissioners make a list of their points for the discussion in November. Director Nielsen stated the City has a party permit for people who are going to have more than 75 people at a gathering. A person basically fills out an application indicating that that is going to happen and providing contact information. The City provides the applicant with a set of rules. That process has worked well. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Bean stated during Council’s September 26 meeting there was discussion about a drainage issue along Lilac Lane and whether it was a private issue with a private cause or a private issue with a public cause. He asked if the Planning Commission should discuss that. Director Nielsen stated he thought it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to review the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. The Comp Plan addresses different levels of problems. It states if an issue impacts one property that is a private problem. If it impacts a group of properties, then the City may want to get involved with that. If the City is going to get involved then the City may need to acquire easements. He does not think Council was aware of that provision during its discussion. During Council’s discussion Council asked staff to provide additional information including the excerpt from the Comp Plan. Nielsen then stated from his perspective the City should not spend money to resolve the drainage problem because the previous owner of the Lilac Lane property located the driveway at the lowest point of Lilac Lane. Commissioner Bean asked if there is a log of known stormwater drainage problems in the City. Director Nielsen stated City Engineer and Public Works has a list of them. Bean then asked if it would make sense to identify them in the Comp Plan. Nielsen noted the more significant problems are included in one of the City’s plans [the Surface Water Management Plan]. Bean clarified he was wondering if they could be highlighted on the map in the Comp Plan. Nielsen noted that he would not recommend that. Chair Davis stated that when roadways are reconstructed the City makes an attempt to mitigate drainage problems. Commissioner Bean stated when he was previously involved with City government the City could not mitigate many problems because residents did not want the City to install culverts to channel water. Director Nielsen stated Glen Road is a perfect example of that. Nielsen explained the City prepared an extensive plan to address drainage concerns there. Even though the City would pay for the work the residents would have to have given the City easements and they did not want to do that. Bean commented that curb and gutter were two words residents reacted poorly to in the mid-1990s. Commissioner Johnson asked if there has been any discussion about drainage along the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail. There has been standing water there for the past one and one-half months; all the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 12 of 13 way from Cathcart Drive to Freeman Park on both sides of the Trail. Chair Davis noted there had been a 500-year event. Johnson noted he has lived in the City for two years and during that time there have been two 100-year events and one 500-year event. Director Nielsen stated staff has looked into that a couple of times and understands there is a drainage problem. Nielsen explained that area is very flat; it does not drain well. When Strawberry Gardens was developed years ago there was discussion about putting in an extensive stormwater management system. Unfortunately, residents did not want to give up easements and the cost of the system was prohibitive. The City did limit the number of lots in that development. Chair Davis stated she remembered that when she was on the Park Commission WSB & Associates had prepared a proposal for the City to create two ponds in Freeman Park. That would have required taking out mostly buckthorn and some trees but some people did not like that idea. That would have solved the drainage problem on that side if it had been done. Director Nielsen stated that project is still around and noted the cost to do that is quite high. He thought the cost would be about $600,000. Davis said it was less than $1 million. Nielsen stated the City decided not to spend that much money on that project. Director Nielsen noted there are drainage issues throughout the City. 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen explained the City is required to update its floodplain regulations. The City has been provided with a model ordinance which is not drastically different than what the City has in place (a copy of the model was distributed to the Commissioners). It appears that a number of definitions were added to the model ordinance. Some flexibility was added to the flood proofing provisions. The flood insurance rate maps were also fine-tuned; he thought quite well. The City has to adopt the updated floodplain regulations by November 4. Staff thought that did not have to be done until later in the year. Therefore, he asked the Commissioners if they could meet on October 18. He will send out a memo that highlights the difference between the current ordinance and the model ordinance. Commissioner Maddy asked what would happen if the City did not get the regulations adopted by November 4. Director Nielsen explained no one in the City would be eligible for flood insurance. Chair Davis asked if the City had a map of the floodplain areas. Director Nielsen explained there are 12 floodplain maps and noted that he would probably provide the Commissioners with some examples. Director Nielsen explained that for any change in the status of a house residents will be notified of the change. Based on the information the City was provided some properties are going to be taken out of a floodplain and some will be added in. He then explained if a resident believes it has been incorrectly determined that their house is in a floodplain a resident can go on to the City’s system and see the contours on their property. The resident can then take that information to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) as their evidence that their house in not in a floodplain. In the past when a resident appealed the floodplain determination they needed to have surveys done to help with the appeal. Nielsen noted that the only item on the October 18 meeting agenda would be the floodplain regulations. Commissioner Riedel stated he was at a watershed district meeting when an engineering firm presented the methodology that was used for the revised floodplain calculations. When a house is designated as being in a floodplain they may be forced to pay for flood insurance when they do not need it. That CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2016 Page 13 of 13 engineering firm admitted that in its calculations to determine what constitutes a floodplain they were looking at aerial views and topography. They did not drive around to look at actual houses on properties. 8. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC Chair Davis noted this month’s Sensible Land Use Coalition session will be about affordable housing. • Other 9. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Bean seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 4, 2016, at 8:25 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder