The URL can be used to link to this page

02-16-16 Planning Comm Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2016 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE DAVIS (Feb) ______ RIEDEL (tbd) ______ MADDY (May) ______ BEAN (Jun) ______ JOHNSON (Apr) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 January 2016  1. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. – FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS Applicant: Gloria Aanenson Location: 19325 Waterford Place 2. PUBLIC HEARING – REVISED DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN – MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB P.U.D. Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 6. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Vice-Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Sundberg Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Geng moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for January 5, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 1, 2015 Geng moved, Bean seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Director Nielsen noted that this is the first time the Planning Commission agenda included a Consent Agenda. He explained that Council almost always has a consent item on its agenda for its regular meetings. The consent agenda is for minor items. Tonight’s Consent Agenda includes two petitions for an extension of a conditional use permit (C.U.P.). Both petitioners submitted their requests before the expiration of their original approval. Staff considers both requests to be reasonable. Staff anticipated that the applicant for two houses on one lot would ask for an extension at the time the original C.U.P. was granted. If a Planning Commissioner has questions about an item on the consent agenda the protocol would be to remove it from the consent agenda for discussion and then vote on whether or not to recommend approval of the item separately. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda. A. Petition for Extension of Conditional Use Permit Approval Petitioner: Jesse Kath Location: 25025 Yellowstone Trail B. Petition for Extension of Conditional Use Permit Approval Petitioner: Todd Cebulla Location: 5530 Vine Hill Road Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 2 of 21 2. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING L-R DISTRICT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Applicant: Shorewood Yacht Club (Gabriel Jabbour) Location: 23500 Smithtown Road Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. 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 an amendment to a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for the Shorewood Yacht Club (owned by Gabriel Jabbour), 23500 Smithtown Road Director Nielsen explained Mr. Jabbour, owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) located at 23500 Smithtown Road, has requested that the existing C.U.P. under which the Yacht Club operates be amended to remove the restriction on the number of power boats that may be docked at the site. There is a lot of history associated with the property. In 2007 the SYC was granted an interim C.U.P. that allowed the SYC to keep more power boats at its dock slips. In 2011 the then Council approved a permanent C.U.P. largely because of how things went during the there-year trial period. The permanent C.U.P. allowed the SYC to keep up to 52 power boats [in addition to five previously approved] at dock slips located at pier #3 and pier #4. The SYC had asked to be able to keep up to 50 percent power boats at its 117 slips. The remaining slips were to be for sail boats. Mr. Jabbour proposes to reconstruct the existing dock configuration which would enhance safety by providing for wider walkways and by replacing deteriorating dock structures. He would like to build “universal docks” that would accommodate either sail or power boats. Before making that investment he asked that the restriction on the number of power boats be removed to allow for more flexibility. He intends to continue to run a sailing operation. His request is outlined in his e-mail dated December 21, 2015, (a copy of which was included in the meeting packet). Copies of aerial photos of the property were also included in the packet. Nielsen noted that Mr. Jabbour was present. Gabriel Jabbour, owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club, noted his daughter Georgette was present as well. He commented that when the SYC was first conceived there used to be thousands of sail boats on Lake Minnetonka. For his previous application there were hundreds that were not housed at racing yacht clubs. He explained that one of his companies has owned the SYC property for 10 years and during that period there has not been a single resident complaint about the marina. His hope is it will continue to be that way. He noted he has no immediate need to change the docks. He explained that while making improvements to some of the SYC’s docks it has become very clear that the docks should not have been constructed the way they were. Walking on the docks is somewhat like walking a plank. The electrical and the site in general need to be improved. He does not envision a drastic change in the ratio of sail boats to power boats. The SYC’s owners have a strong moral and financial commitment to those who supported the changes to its C.U.P. the last time. The owners of the SYC have equipment which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars that is biased towards sail boats. Also, the SYC does not want to turn away 60 – 70 sail boat owners who want to rent dock slips from the SYC. This year there is a group of people who are going to be a sailing in different parts of the world so five or six of the Club members will not be coming back. Next year there could be sailors who are visiting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 3 of 21 He stated life is cyclical. At one time there may have been a reason to limit the number of power boats because residents living near that part of Lake Minnetonka did not want them there. He then stated he is finding more and more residents in the community who would like to dock their boats at the SYC. The SYC has voluntarily offered a discount to Shorewood residents who rent a slip at the SYC. It has also offered the same discount to Shorewood residents who have to rent a slip at another marina he owns because there was no room for them at the SYC for an interim period. He anticipates the Minnetonka Country Club development will generate more desire to rent slips for power boats at the SYC. He clarified he has no intention to ask a current renter to leave or to not give bias to a sail boat owner. But, if there are ten empty slips he does not see a reason why a power boat owner cannot rent one. He went on to state if the City were to remove the restriction on where the power boats have to dock it would give him the option to mingle power boats and sail boats. He commented that slip renters don’t want to move their boat from one slip to another very often. He noted the lease document does stipulate that the SYC has the right to move a renter to a different slip. He thanked staff, the Planning Commission and City Council for the trust it had placed in the SYC owners and managers. He hopes that people believe that they have lived up to their promises. He stated that he thought they have improved the site significantly. He explained the business plan for the SYC is to reduce the density on land. The intent is to have less density while maintaining revenues. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to drive through the site and see the reduction of density on land. Mr. Jabbour offered to entertain questions from the Commissioners. Vice-Chair Davis asked if all of the docks will be replaced. Mr. Jabbour responded he is not sure when that will happen. Some slips have been rebuilt but the next time that needs to be done he wants to replace an entire pier at a time. Mr. Jabbour noted that in one area there had been three layers of walkway on land. He stated he thought the best approach would be to remove piers and replace them and to replace the electrical at the same time. He noted that in 2014 when the level of Lake Minnetonka was so high he was very concerned about leaving power on to the slips. He was at the site frequently to check on things. He stated over the last 10 years new technologies have come to market to make monitoring easier. He noted that the SYC has no plans to migrate away from sail boats. He also noted that the SYC is the only site around the Lake, except for Sailor World which has three to four boats, which can handle the number of slip rentals for sail boats that the SYC can. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the SYC needs a permit to rebuild its docks. Director Nielsen explained the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has authority over the placement of the docks and the City has the opportunity to approve them. Mr. Jabbour noted that the SYC would not do anything without copying the City on what it submits to the LMCD. Mr. Jabbour encouraged people to look at the marina he owns on St. Alban’s Bay. One hundred percent of the docks were replaced. Commissioner Bean recognized Mr. Jabbour for being one of the best stewards of Lake Minnetonka in the entire Lake area. Bean stated he understood Mr. Jabbour to indicate there has been a decline in sail boating and he asked if that is why he would like the SYC have more flexibility with the number of power boat owners that can rent slips at the SYC. He asked him what he thought the increase in the slip rental for power boats would be. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 4 of 21 Mr. Jabbour commented that he remembers when marina staff changed oil and spread the oil on the gravel. He stated, for example, if the SYC would lose 30 renters because they wanted to sail around the world he thought the SYC could be able to rent one-half or one-fourth of the slips to owners of sail boats. He noted that his staff at the SYC only knows about maintaining and repairing sail boats and all of its storage is for sail boats. He also noted that the SYC gives priority to sail boats and to Shorewood residents. He reiterated that the discount it gives to Shorewood residents is voluntary. He stated if the SYC experiences a loss in revenue he would likely have to cover the loss for a while. But, he would like to have the flexibility to maintain that revenue. Commissioner Bean stated he thought it would be nice to provide the residents in that area a sense of what Mr. Jabbour thought might happen at the SYC over the next few years. Mr. Jabbour guaranteed that over the next two years nothing will happen but he is not sure what will happen over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Bean asked Director Nielsen to display the aerial photo of the SYC included in the meeting packet. He then asked Mr. Jabbour if the configuration of the docks would remain relatively the same. Mr. Jabbour stated that the number of slips the SYC can have is limited by the C.U.P. The lengths are limited by LMCD regulations. The LMCD has recently changed the lengths for a qualified marina (which the SYC is) so the length could be up to 200 feet. Director Nielsen stated he thought the length is less than 200 feet today. Commissioner Bean stated that at the St. Alban’s Bay marina the platform on the docks was widened. Vice-Chair Davis stated as part of her job she was involved with redoing another municipality’s docks and the LMCD allowed alterations as long as the original footprint remained the same. Mr. Jabbour disclosed that he is Orono’s representative on the LMCD Board. Vice-Chair Davis asked what the SYC’s vacancy rate was in 2015. Mr. Jabbour noted there were no vacancies and the SYC had a waiting list for slip rentals. Mr. Jabbour stated in 2008 there were 357,000 boats manufactured in the United States. In 2009 158,000 were manufactured. The manufacturing rate is starting to trend upward now. He commented that he knows that because he works very closely with the ABYC (American Boat and Yacht Council) on how to redesign boats to make it easier to remove aquatic invasive species (AIS) from them. Vice-Chair Davis asked what the largest size power boat is that could be docked at a SYC rental slip. Mr. Jabbour stated that how the length of a boat is measured has changed such that an old 28-foot-long boat is now considered to be 32 feet long. Mr. Jabbour pointed to where he would like to have a handicap accessible structure on the aerial photo. Commissioner Bean stated that under the current C.U.P. power boats have to be docked at the first two piers. Director Nielsen clarified piers #3 and #4. He then stated he understood Mr. Jabbour to be asking for flexibility to dock power boats and sail boats anywhere. Mr. Jabbour explained the maneuverability of boats varies and therefore it would be helpful to dock boats in certain slips based on the maneuverability. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 5 of 21 In response to a comment from Commissioner Bean, Mr. Jabbour explained the slip rental contract stipulates that if a person violates certain rules their contract is voided and their boat will be removed from the water by SYC staff and the owner cannot get their boat until they pay the rental fee for the entire season. Commissioner Johnson asked if that includes violating wake restrictions. Mr. Jabbour clarified he cannot control that; it is a criminal violation and not a civil violation. Mr. Jabbour stated SYC staff tells slip renters that the SYC and renters are guests in the area. He then stated SYC staff explains the buoys’ significance in the waters near the SYC to renters. Commissioner Bean stated that some of the letters submitted by residents expressed concern that the increase in boat traffic would generate more and/or larger wakes in waters surrounded by fragile shoreline until the boats pass the small island there. There could be potential that additional power boat traffic could create a more volatile situation for the shoreline. Mr. Jabbour stated he disagreed 100 percent. Mr. Jabbour explained that he personally took issue with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) about public access. The DNR wanted every boat in Minnesota to have access to a public access. The LMCD did a survey and found out that on the peak day (Fourth of July) 20 – 24 percent of the boats are out on the Lake. On a Thursday evening during the summer on Wayzata Bay 100 percent of the boats docked at Wayzata Bay Yacht Club are out on the water participating in a race. He stated that he understands that sail boats cannot make the same size wake as power boats; it is irresponsible boat drivers that cause the larger wakes. The SYC is in a financial position where it does not need to rent to boat owners who break the rules. Commissioner Bean stated that all of the sail boats being out on Wayzata Bay does not generate the amount of wake that one 30-foot-long Sea Ray does. Mr. Jabbour agreed provided the Sea Ray was not putting around. Mr. Jabbour noted that SYC staff asks power boaters to keep their wakes to a minimum when near the SYC. He then noted that because there have been no complaints over 10 years about power boaters whose boats were docked at the SYC they must be doing something right. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the SYC has ever evicted a renter. Mr. Jabbour responded yes. Commissioner Johnson asked what percent of the sail boats docked at the SYC participate in races. Mr. Jabbour stated the SYC has a good racing club and commented that the former mayor tells him how good they do. The Club changed its name for liability reasons. Last year it had five races and the most participation was five boats and usually three boats. Johnson stated that confirms Mr. Jabbour’s earlier remarks about the decline in sail boating. Mr. Jabbour stated the decline in sail boats has been in the thousands. He then stated the SYC used to hire someone for the judges’ boat at the SYC. That was stopped four years ago because that boat went out twice a year. Johnson stated from his perspective part of the reason for the decline in sail boats on Lake Minnetonka is the number of power boats because power boats inherently change the way a sail boat races in the water. Mr. Jabbour stated in 2004 there was a major reduction at the peak time for boats being out. In response to a question from Johnson, Mr. Jabbour clarified that was for power boats. Mr. Jabbour stated he is very excited about the Minnetonka Yacht Club’s sailing school. Commissioner Bean stated that irrespective of the mix of power boats and sail boats he thought he heard Mr. Jabbour indicate that there would not be any change to onshore services provided. For example, there is no plan for a gas dock. Mr. Jabbour clarified the SYC has changed the services it provides on shore. He eliminated the store two years ago, he eliminated services, he removed all of the unnecessary buildings and he downsized the number of employees. He compared it to going from being a hotel to a motel. Mr. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 6 of 21 Jabbour stated that last year the SYC hired the Coast Guard Axillary to teach people how to use their boats. Bean asked if Mr. Jabbour plans on keeping the operation downsized. Mr. Jabbour stated at this time that is his plan. Commissioner Johnson asked how many vehicle parking spaces are on the site. Mr. Jabbour stated he does not know the answer to that offhand and noted that there has never been a parking problem which is why he does not know that answer. He thought the SYC had a lot more parking than other marinas have. He clarified he does not know what Shorewood’s ordinance requires but he was confident it was not one space per slip. Johnson stated the City has an ordinance that stipulates the character of the site has to be primarily for sailing. He asked if there is a way to give the SYC more flexibility while continuing to keep it primarily for sailing. He then asked if it would help the SYC if he were able to put power boats in any slip. Mr. Jabbour stated no. Mr. Jabbour stated sail boats enter from the middle and power boats are entered from the rear. Also, sail boats require very little electricity. To rebuild things just for flexibility is not a good idea. Commissioner Johnson stated when the docks are rebuilt he asked if there would still be some docks that are just for power boats. Mr. Jabbour clarified he would like to rebuild it so that power boats or sail boats could use most slips. Mr. Jabbour stated there are some long-keeled sail boats. They have to be docked way out. There are times it would be very helpful to ask a power boat owner to move to a new slip so that type of sail boat could be docked in that slip. Mr. Jabbour questioned if the City’s ordinance still applies. He clarified that the SYC is primarily a sail boat place. He explained that the SYC had a problem last year when one renter allowed kids to jump off the docks. That is not allowed. He also lost some renters when he would not allow a club to rent slips and have people he did not know use them. Ms. Georgette Jabbour made some comments that could not be clearly heard on the recording. Director Nielsen explained that the site plan from 2007 indicated there were 115 parking spaces and he thought that is in compliance with the City’s Ordinance. The SYC has land along Country Road 19 but he is not sure how much that is used. Vice-Chair Davis stated based on what she looked at it appears that parking is allowed for SYC boaters in the empty space up at Lucky’s Station. Mr. Jabbour clarified that is for the Excel Boat Club which now has a different name. Mr. Jabbour noted that since 2007 he has purchased the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company’s land. Mr. Jabbour stated that even on the Fourth of July when people pulled onto the SYC’s land to watch fireworks there was not a problem with parking. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M. Troy Stottler, 23620 Smithtown Road, noted his property is the closest residential property to the SYC and that he thought Mr. Jabbour has been a wonderful person for the Lake Minnetonka area. He stated he does not hear much noise generated on the SYC property or marina that is not drowned out by the noise from traffic on Country Road 19. He then stated more noise is generated on the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail than at Mr. Jabbour’s marina. He went on to state that things change and people have to adapt. Mr. Jabbour should be able to run a profitable business and to continue helping the City and Lake Minnetonka area out. He thought that if the City continues to limit the number of power boats that can be docked at the SYC marina and if he wanted to rent a slip for a power boat but the allocated number of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 7 of 21 slips for power boats were all rented then the limitation would be problematic for him yet he pays taxes to the City. He thought the SYC should be able to dock any type of boat at any of the slips; that is what the marina is for. He noted that his property does not front the Lake and that he cannot afford property that fronts the Lake. He stated he thought Mr. Jabbour’s request would be a win for every one and that he would not have an issue if all the slips were rented to power boat owners. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M. Commissioner Johnson asked Director Nielsen what the original reason was for the restriction on power boats was and how things have evolved. Director Nielsen explained the marina was originally proposed as a sailing yacht club and noted that was before he worked for the City. It came in under a C.U.P. under old Ordinance number 77 which allowed yacht clubs in a residential zoning district. The application was contentious and the City fought it. It was taken to court. The court ruled in favor of the owner because it was listed as a C.U.P. in the City’s ordinance but there were no conditions associated with it. The applicant met all of the conditions of the C.U.P. because there were none. The court told the City to grant the C.U.P. It operated as a yacht club for a number of years. The SYC struggled after a while and Mr. Jabbour eventually bought it. Mr. Jabbour continued to operate it as a sailing yacht club for a while. In 2007 the SYC requested the City allow the SYC to rent out a certain number of slips for power boats. The C.U.P. was changed to allow a certain number of slips for power boats for a three-year period of time to find out how things would work out. In late 2010 the SYC submitted a request to make its interim C.U.P. permanent and increase the number of slips that could be rented for power boats. That was approved in early 2011. The SYC could then rent 52 slips plus the original five approved for power boats. Nielsen reiterated that there has not been a single resident complaint about boats docked at the SYC. He noted the site has been cleaned up significantly since Mr. Jabbour bought it. He also noted the City is well aware of Mr. Jabbour’s generosity of storing the Excelsior Fire District’s fire service boat for free at the SYC. He thought Mr. Jabbour and his SYC have been a good neighbor over his ten years of ownership. Commissioner Maddy commented that it has been pointed out that the power boats are restricted to the two westerly piers. He explained the sail boats have to leave the marina and travel through the channel because of their keels. It is not a necessity for the power boats to do that. He asked what the water depth is at the two westerly piers. He also asked if there is a way to force the power boats to also use the channel when leaving the marina area. Director Nielsen stated he knows there is a dredged channel and it would make the most sense for all boats to use that. Maddy stated he has a neighbor who docks at boat at the SYC on the far westerly side closest to shore and when leaving the area he cuts across even though it is quite shallow. That boat generates a wake that likely flows onto someone’s yard. Commissioner Bean stated when a boat is on the water that is under the LMCD’s or Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol’s jurisdiction. Bean noted there is no posted restriction keeping boaters from going there. Maddy expressed concern about making a decision about this when it cannot manage what happens after the boats leave the dock slips. He questioned if the City should solicit input from the LMCD. Chair Geng stated he does not think there is a need for LMCD input on the number and location of power boats. Maddy stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a fax from 2007 regarding the LMCD’s Policy for Establishment of Quiet Water Area on Lake Minnetonka. It refers to reasons why it would be beneficial to establish quite water areas some including: the wash and wake damage to the shoreline, area too small for general boating, normal wave action intensified by power boats, area is really an extended channel, and to protect sail boat mooring areas. Because the LMCD has brought those types of things up it causes him to be concerned. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 8 of 21 Chair Geng clarified that the document actually states that many reasons had been given as reasons for requesting changes to quiet water areas. It does not state they are facts. Geng reiterated that once a boater is out of the marina Shorewood has no control. He stated he does not think that in and of itself is a reason to limit the number of power boats allowed at the marina. He then stated that drivers speed up and down Country Club Road yet cars are not banned from traveling on that roadway. It is an enforcement issue. If there is an enforcement issue on the water then residents need to bring those issues to the attention of the proper authority and those authorities need to be responsive. Vice-Chair Davis stated the Planning Commission had the same discussion about enforcement and reporting the last time the SYC requested a change to its C.U.P. Mr. Jabbour noted the LMCD has a process it follows to determine if an area should be designated as a quiet water area; it is a study. He stated from his vantage point he thought the Water Patrol’s Lake Minnetonka headquarters was established when the use of the Lake was different than it is today. The Lower Lake is underserved by the Water Patrol. He explained that two years ago he approached the Hennepin County Sherriff about leasing a slip for free at the SYC for a Water Patrol boat if they need it. He stated you cannot manage boaters’ behaviors by limiting the number of slips for power boats. He explained the SYC used to offer free sewage pumps for boats. That practice has been stopped thereby reducing boat traffic. He thought the enforcement issue should be paid for by many people not just one site. He clarified he is a strong proponent for safety and enforcement. Chair Geng stated he appreciates Commissioner Johnson sharing his perspective about being a sail boater. At the same time it is important for people to recognize there has been a significant decline in sail boaters on Lake Minnetonka and throughout the nation. Commissioner Johnson stated before making a change in the ratio and location of power boats he thought it important to understand why the original restrictions were put in place. He does not think people will ever know that. He commented that there continues to be a decline in the number of yacht clubs. Chair Geng stated he thought it is important to recognize that change is a constant. He then stated that in 2014 when the water level in Lake Minnetonka was extremely high the wake restrictions put in place made living near the Lake very nice because there was limited and slow boat traffic. Commissioner Johnson stated it was great for sailing. Geng then stated the wakes generated by extremely large power boats make it less pleasurable for boaters of smaller sized power boats. It is not just sail boaters that are impacted. Johnson noted it is not just sailing versus power boating it is also big power boating versus small power boating. He stated that in 1997 a 19-foot-long power boat was sufficient for use on Lake Minnetonka; now a 35 – 40-foot-long boat is needed to keep from being bounced around by the wakes. Commissioner Johnson stated one of the things he likes about allowing the SYC flexibility to mix and match the location of power boats and sail boats is to get the power boaters to use the channel. He would like the LMCD to let the City know if there are ways to promote the use of the channel. That would be helpful to control wave action against the shoreline. Chair Geng noted that he also thought that Mr. Jabbour is a good steward of Lake Minnetonka. He explained that Mr. Jabbour has used his equipment to help pick up and remove trash from Big Island. Three years ago he singlehandedly made an effort that culminated in a large meeting of boat builders held in Las Vegas, Nevada, last spring to talk about how boat designs could be changed to help discourage the transportation of AIS. Mr. Jabbour has been a leader in moving that forward and he has been a responsive business owner in Shorewood. There has not been a complaint about the SYC operation in ten years. Commissioner Maddy stated that because Lake Minnetonka has so many public access spots it undermines people’s ability to control the types of boats used on the Lake. Independent of whether or not CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 9 of 21 more power boats would be allowed at the SYC it will not change the fact the Lake is pretty much a drunken playground for boaters of large power boats every weekend. He questioned Code Section 1201.24 Subd 10.d which states “Issuance of a license shall take into consideration the historic use of the site under consideration with respect to the use of power boats.” He thought it odd to regulate a historic use over a changing demographic. He does not think there is a benefit in doing that; it would regulate the SYC out of business if there is not some flexibility. On the other hand Mr. Jabbour is operating the site without the required parking; there should be 117 spaces. He acknowledged he must not need them because he has never seen vehicles backed up to Smithtown Road. He suggested the Planning Commission discuss the parking requirements at a future date. He stated there is not a dust free driveway and that is stipulated in the 1201.24 Subd. 8.h. There are also other criteria in Section 1201.24 the Commission should also discuss. He questioned if maybe the Ordinance was not up to date as opposed to there being an operational problem. Mr. Jabbour explained concrete slabs, the same as those used on access ramps, have been put down in some areas where people drive. Dust suppressant material is used and it does work for 3 – 4 months depending on rain and the volume of traffic. He has had samples of stormwater runoff taken and sent to a lab to have it tested. He continues to try and improve the site. The Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company has voluminous amounts of stuff coming to and from the site. He has increased the amount of parking when compared to 10 years ago because he has removed buildings from the SYC site and turned that into parking. He has trimmed overreaching vegetation back. He then stated he owns four marinas and he did not realize that parking was an issue. Had he known that he would have done something about it. Commissioner Bean suggested clarifying the ordinance relative to parking. He stated he is not sure any marina has complied with it in the past. Director Nielsen clarified the SYC’s parking is in compliance with the C.U.P. He explained the City Code requires 115 spaces and the site plan shows 121 spaces. Commissioner Bean stated the C.U.P. stipulated the power boats being kept at pier #4 cannot exceed 30 feet. He asked if that is still appropriate. Mr. Jabbour clarified if the docks are reconfigured pier #4 will still have a 30-foot restriction. Vice-Chair Davis asked if there is a way to accommodate Mr. Jabbour’s request and then revisit the City Code at a later time. Director Nielsen responded yes. Director Nielsen clarified the only thing being asked for is to change the restrictions on the number of power boats. It does not change the restriction on the length of boats being docked at pier #4. Mr. Jabbour thanked the Planning Commission for its time. Geng moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the amendment to the Shorewood Yacht Club’s conditional use permit to remove the restriction on the number of power boats and adding the review of Zoning Code Section 1201.24 to the Planning Commission’s 2016 Work Program. Motion passed 5/0. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – REVISED CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS – MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (continued from December 1, 2015) Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 10 of 21 Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 8:21 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. She also noted the Hearing was continued from December 1, 2015. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to continue its consideration of a revised concept plan and Development Stage plans for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Mattamy Homes, 24575 Smithtown Road. Director Nielsen explained that during the December 1 Public Hearing the Planning Commission heard about the revised concept plan and the Development Stage plans, including the preliminary plat, for the MCC PUD. The Commission had been provided with three staff reports regarding issues associated with the Development Stage plans. They were: a planning report from him regarding the Development Stage plans, a memorandum from Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) that addressed environmental and landscaping issues, and a letter from the City Engineer that addressed engineering (transportation and utilities) issues. The three reports each contained a list of recommendations. Staff consolidated recommendations into a spreadsheet and noted when each of the recommendations would be addressed (i.e., R= resolved, FP = Final Stage plans; DA = Development Agreement; and, DC = Declaration of Covenants or possibly all three). The spreadsheet also included remarks explaining what staff’s recommendation is. The spreadsheet will serve as a punch list and used to ensure all items get addressed. Commissioner Johnson recommended the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing be reopened before the Planning Commission has its discussion. Vice-Chair Davis reopened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:23 P.M. Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail, stated that during the December 1 meeting there was some discussion about conveying some of the open space to property owners. He expressed concern about doing that. He thought the goal was to keep as much of that open space as natural as possible. Director Nielsen noted that has been a concern of staff. He explained the orphaned piece on the northwest side of the site would not be usable by the public. Staff has suggested that in order to ensure the open spaces remain as such that there be a conservation easement over all of the open space. If the orphaned spaces can be conveyed to a property owner and if the property owner will maintain it in in a fashion consistent with the conservation easement, that would be desired. Some property owners have expressed an interest in doing that. He is not aware of any case where any of those potential owners could by virtue of that gift of land re-subdivide their property. The conservation easement would dictate how the open space needs to be maintained and what can be done on it. Staff has spoken with the developer about preparing a landscape maintenance manual which would include how all of the open spaces are to be maintained whether the space is public, owned by the homeowners association (HOA) or orphaned land conveyed to property owners. Mr. Miles stated that irrespective of how the orphan pieces are conveyed he asked if the conservation easement is enforceable. Director Nielsen responded absolutely. Mr. Miles then stated that his instincts tell him that the absorption statistics on sales are high. There is a lot of house inventory in the market and interest will continue to gradually increase. There are some indications that new home sales are slowing down somewhat. He asked if it would make sense to build the development in more than three phases to avoid ending up with a large unsightly track of land because it is partially developed. It is his understanding that Mattamy would sell a lot and then build on it. That provides a certain amount of control for Mattamy. He questioned if staff and the Planning Commission should have a conversation about that. Director Nielsen noted that came up during the Concept Stage plan review by Council. Nielsen stated lots that were not actively being built upon would have to have some type of vegetation cover on them. Mr. Miles stated he just wanted to ask if it warranted further conversation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 11 of 21 Whitley Mott, 24890 Yellowstone Trail, stated that sometimes it is difficult for residents to get access to the final plans and what the Planning Commission tells Council. Therefore, residents have some concern about the development of the outlots and particularly Outlot H. Director Nielsen stated there are graphics that show what the landscaping will be for the public open spaces and that would or should be out on the City’s website. The consultant recommended some of the eco turf “low mow” lawn be reduced a little and be replaced with more natural vegetation. Mr. Mott stated one graphic indicates the land abutting his property would be native buffer seeding (pollinator) and he expressed concern that would invade his property. There had been discussion about having a buffer zone to a contiguous property to keep his manicured lawn from turning into a native buffer seeding (pollinator). He does not want to have to battle keeping native grasses from invading his property. That same issue was discussed with Nielsen about trails and Nielsen indicated there would be a buffer zone along the trails. He noted that he has fought the issue of snakes and field mice invading his property. Nielsen suggested having discussion about having eco turf abutting Mr. Mott’s property. Mr. Mott stated he needs the Planning Commission to understand how the development and landscaping of the outlots would impact his property and house. Mr. Mott noted that Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, has been very helpful. Director Nielsen noted that would be added to the spreadsheet punch list. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:34 P.M. Chair Geng asked how the Planning Commission’s discussion should be structured. Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, distributed an exhibit of the age-targeted units in the MCC development showing the setbacks. There was Planning Commission consensus to discuss each of the items listed in the MCC Development Stage Recommendations Summary spreadsheet. They were broken into three sections – Planning Report, NAC Report, and WSB Report. Director Nielsen explained each item on the spreadsheet and for each item there was Planning Commission discussion. Planning Report 1. Open spaces to be low maintenance/natural; mow trail edges and two small maintained turf areas. Director Nielsen explained staff has discussed reducing the amount of eco turf “low mow” lawn to reduce the amount of maintenance that has to be done. Staff does like the idea of a transition between residential lots and the more natural area. Per the comments from Mr. Mott there is no reason the eco turf could not be extended to Mr. Mott’s property line. The developer will prepare a landscape maintenance manual for how the areas will be maintained by both the HOA (for the private open spaces) and the City (for the public open spaces). Those items will be included in the final plans and the Development Agreement (it will set forth the responsibility of the parties related to who maintains what). Outlot F on the northeast corner of the development will be private open space and maintained by the HOA. Commissioner Bean asked if the various colors used in exhibit MCC Open Space Groundcover Plan reflect who will maintain what. Director Nielsen clarified the colors only indicate open space; not necessarily who will be responsible for maintaining them. The list of the outlots does that. Bean then asked if the letter designation of the outlots has been made consistent in all drawings. Nielsen explained Outlot G had mistakenly been labeled that it would be owned by the City; that was corrected to indicate that it will be conveyed to the owner of the adjoining property. And, Outlot F on the northeast corner now indicates it will be private open space and maintained by the HOA. The remainder of Outlot F will CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 12 of 21 probably be changed to Outlot G and so on down the line. Nielsen noted the preliminary plat outlots have not been relabeled; that will be done for the final plat. Commissioner Johnson suggested that be added to the punch list of things to do. Bean then asked Nielsen to expound upon the conservation easement for the open spaces. Are the details for that known yet? Nielsen explained the conservation easement states the open space will remain as such with some of it being owned and maintained by the City, other parts being owned and maintained by the HOA, and in the case of the westerly lot that will be conveyed to owners of the adjoining properties yet have a conservation easement over it. That land would not end up as a property owner’s rear yard. The Declaration of Covenants will include the landscape maintenance manual which will indicate how that land would be maintained. Commissioner Johnson stated one of the property owners who may have land conveyed to them had expressed reservation about accepting the land because it would increase their property taxes yet the use of it would be restricted. Director Nielsen stated that individual should not accept the land if they have reservations. Nielsen clarified because there would be a conservation easement on the conveyed land it would not increase the value of that person’s property very much. Commissioner Bean asked what happens if a property owner does not accept the land. Nielsen explained that the original intent was for the HOA to take care of the orphaned pieces of land. Mr. Packer reviewed options for the Outlot I which would basically be to convey the land to property owners west of the Outlot or have the HOA be responsible for that. Commissioner Bean asked why a property owner would want to accept an outlot if there would be restrictions on how it could be used and if it would increase their property taxes by some amount. Mr. Packer stated one property owner has landscape plans for enhancing an outlot and clarified that person would not manicure the outlot. That owner would make it easier for his children to get to the sidewalk abutting the development and within the development or to parks. He clarified he is not an appraiser. Bean stated if the owners of properties abutting Outlot I accepted the land the three owners could possibly maintain the conveyed property differently. Director Nielsen reiterated the maintenance manual will specify how that open space has to be maintained. He stated they would not be able to store things on that land nor manicure the lawns; the land would have to be kept in its natural state. Bean asked why the City would not want to maintain control of the outlots to ensure the land would be maintained the same way. Nielsen stated because the orphaned pieces would not be available for use by the public. The pieces the City has agreed to maintain will be available for use by the public. Mr. Packer stated most of the land has scattered trees on it and are golf course rough areas. Mr. Packer commented that if Mattamy were to deed the land to property owners Mattamy would likely require that the land be mowed three times a season. He also commented that owning a small piece of vacant land is not worth it. Mr. Packer noted Outlot A is predominantly wetland. He also noted that Lucas Eichmeyer, the owner of the property to the south of the Outlot, has expressed interest in that land but they have not agreed to any terms. There is some right-of-way (ROW) that is platted as wetland; he does not envision the City constructing a road through there. Commissioner Bean asked if that was an extension of Seamans Drive. Mr. Packer responded yes. Mr. Packer stated Outlot B and Outlot C will be owned and maintained by the HOA. Mr. Packer then stated Outlot D will be owned and maintained by the HOA or it may be conveyed to Matt Carlson, owner of the property just north of Outlot D. There is a storm sewer and catch basin in that area. Commissioner Bean asked if, conceptually, that could ever be an extension of Club Lane if and when the City could be in a position to widen that roadway and connect it through. Mr. Packer stated that was CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 13 of 21 talked about with the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) earlier on in the process. He noted that is not even a half of ROW there. He stated to extend that roadway would require the City to acquire a lot of private property. Bean stated keeping it under the HOA may allow for future flexibility if needed. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy does not prefer one way or the other. Director Nielsen explained Club Lane was considered as a second access to Smithtown Road but it did not make any sense to do that for the development. He does not know what would be gained by extending Club Lane to Bentgrass Way. It would more likely be a cul-de-sac serving whatever that land is redeveloped to. He commented that it may be prudent to leave the land for a partial trail connection. Bean clarified he was not advocating for anything specifically. Nielsen explained as Outlot D is described in the Development Agreement and the Declaration of Covenants it could be left as an option. Commissioner Johnson he asked if as part of the final plans there would be a breakdown matrix for each outlot. Director Nielsen responded yes. Mr. Packer noted they will be renumbered, noting there will be more outlots added. Mr. Packer stated Outlot E will be owned and maintained by the HOA. He then stated that Outlot F will be reconfigured and possibly broken into multiple outlots. He went on to state a trail will be brought out to Country Club Road across from Mary Lake Trail. He stated for the outlot to the west of the Coffey property at the northwest intersection of Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail (currently part of Outlot F) part will be conveyed to the Coffeys; a triangle piece and the piece where all of the trees are. The HOA will landscape and maintain an area about 50 feet back from the curb. He noted that a small part of an outlet near the Coffey property would be eliminated and that area near the street entrance would be landscaped and maintained by the HOA. Mr. Parker stated Outlot H on the south side of the development would be owned and maintained by the City. It would also be under a conservation easement. Commissioner Bean asked what the pink color area is on the Groundcover Plan. Mr. Packer stated that is wetland. It is mitigation for the wetland lost by making Ayrshire Lane an access to and from Smithtown Road on the northwest corner of the development. The dark blue areas are stormwater management ponds that would be 5 – 8 feet deep. In response to a comment, Mr. Packer stated eco turf “low mow” lawn needs to be mowed a couple times a year and it looks like wavy long grass. Director Nielsen explained the City will maintain that on City owned parcels. Commissioner Johnson asked if this item needs to be amended to include extending the eco turf area along side of the Whitley Mott property. Director Nielsen suggested that be added to the remarks section for NAC Item 3. Chair Geng asked if there are any other properties that could have potential concerns about native buffer seeding (pollinator) area next to their properties. Director Nielsen stated there were not any that would be affected the same way. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 14 of 21 2. HOA responsible for street trees Director Nielsen explained that in the initial staff report the issue was raised about the City not wanting to maintain any more trees than it needed to. There was agreement that street trees would be visually nice and that the HOA would be responsible for the street trees. That would be stipulated in the Development Agreement and Declaration of Covenants. 3. Alternative energy Director Nielsen explained the Council is going to discuss a draft report of renewable energy analysis during its January 11, 2016, meeting. Council hired a consultant to do that analysis a number of months ago. The consultant’s focus was on solar energy. Each consultant the City spoke with indicated that wind energy on individual properties would not be very feasible. The consultant recommended changes that could be made to the Zoning Code that would encourage the use of alternative energy. The developer has indicated that it would not include any prohibition on solar in the Declaration of Covenants; some developments prohibit solar. Solar as an accessory use would be allowed. Roof-top solar would be allowed but staff does not recommend it be installed above the peak of the roof. Solar would be an allowable encroachment – two feet into side yard setbacks and into 60 percent of the rear yard setback. A 20-foot height restriction would be allowed for ground-mounted solar. A hard cover credit would be allowed for solar; that should be discussed further. The solar things allowed in the MCC development would eventually be incorporated into the Zoning Code. The alternative energy provisions will be a statement in the Development Agreement and a provision in the Declaration of Covenants. KR clarified that the intent, from her perspective, is that renewable energy would be permissive. No one is trying to force renewable energy on the development. Director Nielsen stated that one of the recommendations in the renewable energy analysis was the use of solar easements. It concluded that does not work very well for single family lots. That results trading one property owner’s right to have trees in their yard for another owner’s right to have a solar array. Mr. Packer asked if the City’s intent is that the solar arrays would be a matter of right or would they have to apply to the City for approval to do that. Director Nielsen stated that would be handled with a zoning permit and he assumes the HOA architectural review committee would have some say in that as well. Commissioner Bean stated that if, for example, a tree grew to 40 feet high on an abutting property and blocked the solar panel on the other property the tree would trump the solar panel. Director Nielsen stated there is an energy value to having trees. Commissioner Bean asked if it would be simple enough to say there would be no prohibition of solar in the development but it would be subject to what the City ultimately includes in its solar ordinance and is approved by the HOA. Director Nielsen suggested discussing solar more before the final plans are done. 4. Concept Plan revision – Venero property Director Nielsen explained staff is confident that the portion of the Venero property Mattamy proposes to buy would leave enough area to meet the R1-A zoning district standards. The barn and greenhouse would have to be removed because Mattamy will build two houses on what it purchases. There is no sense of urgency for the minor subdivision. It can be addressed with the final plans. He anticipates the subdivision to be done in conjunction with the final plans. He noted that the Veneros want to keep their garden CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 15 of 21 business through next summer. He explained a condition can be specified that by a certain date the buildings would have to be removed and the City would have to receive an escrow to ensure that happens. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy is not going to purchase the lots unless the buildings have been removed and noted the buildings were built to be relocated. Director Nielsen asked Mr. Packer to let Mr. Venero know that the City does require moving permits for buildings that are somewhat intact. Mr. Packer noted the development on two lots of the Venero property would not occur until phase 3 of the development. 5. Use of Outlots This was discussed as part of Item 1 above. 6. Building setbacks Director Nielsen explained the underlying standards for the development will be R-1C standards for the traditional lots. For lots abutting 60-foot ROWs, 30-foot front yard setbacks would be allowed. For the age-targeted units, 25-foot front setbacks would be allowed except for the east side of the westerly units where 20 feet would be allowed. The final plans must include a graphic showing what the setbacks are for each lot. Mr. Packer explained Mattamy heard some concern expressed about the age-target lots and the size of the homes resulting in narrower side yard setbacks. The vision of an army barracks came to mind for some. He displayed a graphic showing actual floor plans for the age-targeted units Mattamy builds. The fronts can be significantly different. If people go to look at the units in a development out in Minnetrista or wait until age-targeted units start to get built for the MCC project they will see that they are anything but army barracks. That is accomplished by the design of the houses and the placement of the units on curved streets. Mattamy has made a concerted effort to make the development interesting, noting the MCC development is compact. 7. Impervious surface (hardcover) Director Nielsen stated in the initial staff report staff recommended a hardcover maximum of 40 percent. He explained that ordinarily residential lots have a 33 percent maximum and 25 percent if located in a shoreland district. Because the MCC development is being done under a PUD and about 40 acres of the site is set aside as open space staff suggested the maximum per lot be increased. That would be indicated in the Development Agreement. 8. Maintenance standards – private open space Director Nielsen stated the developer will provide maintenance standards for the private open space that would be referenced in the conservation easement. That will be shown in the final plans and included in the Development Agreement and the Declaration of Covenants. 9. Additional ROW for Smithtown Road and Country Club Road Director Nielsen stated the developer has already shown that in the preliminary plat. That will show up again in the final plat submitted as part of the final plans. 10. Add second access to Smithtown Road Director Nielsen stated the developer has complied and that will show up again in the final plans. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 16 of 21 11. Shift easterly access on Smithtown Road Director Nielsen stated that has been done and it will show up again in the final plans. 12. Site drainage – outlet approval and pond sizes Director Nielsen stated staff and the developer continue to work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on site drainage. The stormwater pond sizes will depend on the allowable outlet size. Ponds may have to be increased in size and the size would be subject to MCWD approval. The developer would have to have MCWD approval prior to submitting its first final plat. Commissioner Johnson asked if there should be any reference to the Development Agreement and the Declaration of Covenants regarding the maintenance of the stormwater ponds. Director Nielsen stated that would be included in the landscape maintenance manual for the open spaces, noting wetlands are part of the open space. NAC Report 1. Defer to MCWD relative to wetland buffers Director Nielsen explained the City Ordinance requires a 35-foot-wide wetland buffer plus a 15-foot setback abutting homes. It was suggested that be increased to 50 feet where possible. To some degree it is a moot point because so much of the site is being left as open space. 2. Wetland buffer monuments Director Nielsen explained the intent is to place monument signs such that they adequately show property owners where their lot ends and where the natural buffer areas begin. Commissioner Johnson asked if that meant there would be something contiguous, such as riprap, to go all the way around the wetlands. Nielsen clarified they would be discreet but noticeable signs. He explained the City currently requires something like a survey stake that when pounded in flares out at the bottom to make them difficult to pull out. Unfortunately, they are flush to the ground and often get covered by normal grass. The intent is to have signs that would be slightly higher than the abutting turf treatment. The style of signs needs to be determined. The location of them needs to be shown on the final plans. 3. Proposed land cover Director Nielsen stated the amount of eco turf “low mow” lawn needs to be reduced and it needs to be extended to the Whitley Mott property on the final plans. The maintenance of the land cover needs to be included in the landscape maintenance manual. 4. Revise the tree replacement calculation Director Nielsen explained the plans submitted to date indicate the replacement trees would be well in excess of the requirements stipulated in the City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. That will be confirmed in the final plans. 5. Provide a tree list, shrub, grass and perennial species and identify where they will be planted Director Nielsen stated the landscape architect has asked for a list of tree, shrub, grass and perennial species and an indication of where they would be planted. That information should be incorporated into the revised Open Space Groundcover Plan that would be submitted with the final plans. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 17 of 21 6. Address the balance of tree species; incorporate Hackberry trees into the replacement plan; increase size of replacement trees to 3-inch caliper; and, increase shrub spacing to 3 feet Director Nielsen stated these suggestions from the landscape architect should be incorporated into the landscape plan and planting schedule and submitted with the final plans. 7. Adjust the entry detail landscape plans to comply with the 30-foot sight triangle Director Nielsen stated the verdict is not in on this yet. He explained staff has discussed this with the developer. The developer has stated that the majority of the cities it has dealt with use a sight triangle that is measured along the edge of the paved street surface. The City Ordinance requires that 30-foot triangle be measured from the property lines. Staff researched what other cities do and found some allow it to be measured from the paved surface and others still measure it from the property line (ROW). In the case of a stop condition which exists on all three intersections measuring from the paved surface could be adequate. However, the City Engineer pointed out that at one intersection the stop sign is placed approximately where the start of the curb radius is. In that intersection it would not be as visible as it would be if the property line was used for determining the sight line. Staff suggests determining the sight line after they know where the stop signs would be placed. Independent of what staff determines there will likely be a need for an ordinance amendment that would apply to other developments or streets. The sight lines are to be determined. 8. Provide a vegetation management plan Director Nielsen stated the developer has agreed to prepare a landscape maintenance manual that addresses the care and maintenance of public and private open space areas. Public Works personnel need that direction. The manual should be submitted with the final plans. 9. Provide a plan for identifying and eradicating invasive exotic plants Director Nielsen stated the landscape maintenance manual should address this and buckthorn removal should be addressed in the grading plan. He explained there are differing perspectives about removing buckthorn up front. Some of the screening along Country Club Road is buckthorn. Removing that will change the appearance to people. The current intent is to transition it so that some of the landscaping improvements along there are made about the same time as the buckthorn is removed. 10. Add additional sidewalks Director Nielsen explained the report suggested adding more sidewalks. Areas proposed for sidewalks on both sides of the street include the areas where the age-targeted housing would be. The age-targeted housing would not necessarily be for seniors. After considerable discussion staff suggested sidewalks within the development be limited to one side of the street only. Having sidewalks on both sides would be out of character with the rest of the City because there are not sidewalks on both sides on the street. That would also require added maintenance by the City. Staff believes the proposed sidewalk and trail plan was adequate as submitted. He noted that as part of the project just over 11,000 feet of trails / sidewalks will be constructed. The entire Smithtown Road trail will be about 13,000 feet long. He stated the original plan showed the sidewalk on the west side along Ayrshire Lane. It may be moved to the east side so it ties in with the sidewalk along Bentgrass Way which would be on the north side. That would be worked out in the final plans. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 18 of 21 11. Extension of trail along Country Club Road to connect with Yellowstone Trail Director Nielsen explained that the difficulty in extending the proposed trail along Country Club Road down to Yellowstone Trail is the City does not have enough ROW to do that at the southeast end of Country Club Road. Also, there is some topography that does not lend itself to a trail and putting in a trail would require the construction of an expensive retraining wall. The traffic committee has discussed the possibility of making Country Club Road slightly curvilinear. That could include curving the roadway to intersect with Yellowstone Trail at 90 degrees. Moving that paved surface a little to the east would open up the flat area at the end of the roadway so the trail could be extended through there. If that is not done, another option could be to acquire additional ROW on the east side of Country Club Road and shift the remainder of that trail over to that side of the street. The sidewalk does go down to Yellowstone Trail through the project along Club Valley Road. Commissioner Bean asked if the City has enough ROW to make that curve. Director Nielsen stated the City would have to acquire additional ROW on the other side of the roadway and noted the developer does not control that area. Bean stated he assumes no one has contacted the property owner. Nielsen confirmed that. Director Nielsen clarified that the options have been a discussion and not a recommendation as of yet. It does make some sense because it would correct the intersection. WSB Report Director Nielsen noted the Engineer’s report contains about three pages of recommendations. Staff selected those it thought should be included in this list of recommendations. The Engineer’s report serves as the Engineer’s check list. All of those recommendations will show up in the final plans and those will change as plans are submitted. 1. Obtain MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), MCWD, WCA (Wetland Conservation Act) and USACOE (US Army Corps of Engineers) Permits Director Nielsen noted a permit was also needed from the Department of Agriculture related to soil remediation. He also noted the developer does not need a permit from the USACOE; the MCWD will handle that. 2. HOA maintenance of stormwater facilities Director Nielsen stated this has been discussed from the very beginning and noted it needs to be incorporate into the landscape maintenance manual that has to be submitted as part of the final plans. It also needs to be referenced in the Development Agreement and Declaration of Covenants. 3. Increase entry lane widths to 20 feet wide and move the landscape median back south of the Smithtown Road ROW Director Nielsen stated that moving the landscape median is because of sight line issues. That and the sight triangle issue will be discussed as part of the final plans. 4. Sidewalks on both side of Ayrshire Lane Director Nielsen noted this was talked about as part of Item #10 under the NAC Report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 19 of 21 5. Cul-de-sac longer than 700 feet Director Nielsen explained the initial plan which did not have a second access point onto Smithtown Road had shown a cul-de-sac that was much longer than 700 feet. A second access has been added on the preliminary plat. The plat shows that the Bentgrass Way/Feather Bay cul-de-sac is approximately 715 feet in length; it has already been shortened to save trees in the northeast corner of the site. This is considered to be de minimis and therefore staff does not recommend a revision to the plat. The Bentgrass Way cul- de-sac on the west end is approximately 750 feet long. This could be corrected by shifting Ayrshire Lane to the west but that would result in loss of trees and it would move the street closer to houses to the west. Because of the minimal number of lots served by that cul-de-sac staff does not recommend a change. In response to a comment from Commissioner Bean, Director Nielsen explained the PUD allows for that type of flexibility. 6. City water Director Nielsen explained the City's water policy requires a $10,000 connection fee per lot, minus the developer's costs in getting water to the front property line of each lot. After speaking with the Director of Public Works earlier in the day staff believes it might be a wash. City policy provides for reimbursing the developer for oversizing watermain. The developer needs an 8-inch pipe and the City wants it to be 12- inch so the City will pay the difference. 7. Streets and utility standards Director Nielsen explained the City Engineer is in the process of updating the City's standard plates and specifications for streets and utilities. Those will be provided to the developer's engineer for inclusion into the final plat. This concluded the discussion about the recommendations and when they will be addressed. Chair Geng stated there has not been any discussion about park dedication fees. Director Nielsen explained the agreement that has been negotiated thus far is that the developer will pay the $6,500 fee per lot for the 121 lots that it originally had in its project. It was the PAC that wanted diversity in housing style. Per State Statute the City has to give some credit for the public open space and for constructing the trails / sidewalks. He clarified the land is not park land. Chair Geng stated an aesthetic concern has been raised since the Planning Commission’s December 1 meeting about the age-targeted housing on the northwest corner along Ayrshire Lane. He asked Mr. Packer if there is sufficient screening on the back of the first four units on the northwest side of the roadway. Vice-Chair Davis stated that it appears that landscape icons have been placed over existing trees on some graphic. Mr. Packer stated that was done to more accurately depict what it will look like; the aerial photograph was enhanced. Mr. Packer stated he would like to address Mr. Miles’ concern, which Mattamy shares, about phasing the development in. He explained that Mattamy prefers to keep its phases as small as possible. Sometimes utilities and grading do not make that feasible. The smaller the phases are the more impact a few houses under construction will have. Mattamy divided the project construction into three phases. The first phase will include construction of three types of products: 16 – 18 age-targeted units; 14 houses in the center that will be built by custom home builders; and some traditional houses to about half way down the site. Mattamy has not determined where all of the excavated dirt will be put. Dirt excavated from phase 2 may have to be put on the phase 3 land. He noted the City is requiring Mattamy to build the trails as part of the first phase. At the same time ponds are built in the common open space houses in the first phase will be CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 20 of 21 constructed. He noted the areas he was talking about on some graphic. He stated that its regular subdivision mowing is done about once a month during construction. Mattamy wants the site to look somewhat tidy during construction. Mattamy wants to keep its footprint as small as possible with each phase. Geng moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the revised Concept Stage plan for the planned unit development (PUD) of the former Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575 Smithtown Road, as proposed and approval of the Development Stage plans subject to the recommendations set forth in the staff report as amended by the Planning Commission’s discussion this evening. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng noted that this ends the Planning Commission’s formal involvement with this development. He stated from his perspective Mr. Packer has been a wonderful representative for Mattamy. He appreciated Mr. Packer’s patience and Mattamy’s patience as well as the way Mr. Packer has been straight forward when dealing with staff and the Commission and Council. Mr. Packer stated that goes both ways. He then stated that he and Mattamy have established a good relationship with staff and the City. Nothing has been brought up that was ridiculous. He noted he found it enjoyable to deal with a professional Planning Commission and a staff that understands there has to be give and take throughout a project like this. He thanked the Commissioners and staff. He commented that he guarantees that some things will change. He stated he hopes he and Mattamy have built a strong enough relationship with staff and the Commissioners and Councilmembers to cooperatively work through changes as they come up. Commissioner Bean asked what the next steps in the approval process are. Director Nielsen stated a timeline is being prepared. Nielsen explained the revised Concept Stage plan and the Development Stage plans will be considered by Council during its January 25, 2015, meeting. Once those are approved by Council the final plans will be prepared. He will meet with the City Attorney on January 7 to start to draft the Development Agreement for the project with what is known to date. Per the City Ordinance, the City gets 20 days after the submission of the complete final plans to review them and bring them before Council. During its December 1, 2015, meeting the Planning Commission had asked for an opportunity to see the Declaration of Covenants. That document will be routed to the Commission as soon as it is available. He anticipates the City will receive a final plat for the first phase of the development in April or possibly March. Mr. Packer explained it’s Mattamy’s plan to have the site loaded with equipment in April before road restrictions are put into effect. Its final plan would be submitted to the MCWD on January 8 and representatives for the MCWD have committed to him that they will turn that around in two days. Mattamy hopes it can get the required permits from agencies within 30 – 60 days. He noted there are no wetland impacts until the third phase of construction but it does need other permits from the MCWD for the first phase. He stated Mattamy hopes to bid the project out in February and get machinery on the site in April. Then there will be a tremendous amount of activity on the site as well as dust and noise. Full blown construction will go on all summer long. The intent is to start constructing houses in October. He noted Mattamy will send out a letter to the nearby residents providing them with Mattamy’s contact information. Its inspector does not live too far from the site. Mattamy will encourage residents to call it directly unless it’s not doing something it is supposed to do. Chair Geng asked if Mattamy is going to bring in more than one custom builder. Mr. Packer responded it will bring in several custom home builders. He explained that Mattamy selected one custom builder but that company backed out, in part, because of the size of the project and because of fear that the market for upper end housing may have peaked. He noted that there are a number of companies that want to construct the age-targeted units. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5, 2016 Page 21 of 21 Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 10:15 P.M. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Bean noted that he will not be at the February 2, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Council Liaisons were selected as followed: January 2016 Commissioner Johnson February 2016 Vice-Chair Davis March 2016 Chair Geng April 2016 Commissioner Johnson May 2016 Commissioner Maddy June 2016 Commissioner Bean 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a senior housing project slated for the February 2, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Sundberg noted there is a Council and staff retreat scheduled for February 5, 2016. • SLUC Director Nielsen noted that Commissioner Maddy told him he was interested in going to the next Sensible Land Use Coalition session. Maddy stated he thought the topic is about land development economics. • Other Director Nielsen stated an advertisement in the Sun Sailor indicated there were openings on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Johnson stated the City’s newsletter also did. Chair Geng, Vice-Chair Davis and Commissioner Johnson all indicated they would be interested in continuing on when their terms expire at the end of February 2016. 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 5, 2016, at 10:22 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY O SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus . cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 January 2016 RE: Aanenson, Gloria — Conditional Use Permit for Fill In Excess of 100 Cubic Yards FILE NO.: 405 (16.02) BACKGROUND Gloria Aanenson is the owner of the property at 19325 Waterford Place (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). She proposes to raise the level of her back yard to create a level play area for her children. The project involves bringing in approximately 600 cubic yards of fill material and the construction of a rather large retaining wall. Shorewood's zoning regulations require a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. Ms. Aanenson's request for a C.U.P. has been scheduled for a public hearing on 2 February. Exhibit B, attached, provides an existing survey of the property. Plans for the retaining wall and fill are contained in Exhibits C -E, attached. The location of the wall is shown on Exhibits C and D. The wall is approximately 220 feet in total length. As illustrated, the wall is approximately 65 feet from the rear lot line and as close as five feet from the side lot lines. It is worth noting that the wall is approximately 10 feet tall at its highest point. The applicant has provided a cross- section drawing (Exhibit E). As shown in that exhibit, the proposed wall is constructed of very large boulder material. The property is zoned P.U.D., Planned Unit Development and contains approximately 29,642 square feet of area. The lot slopes down from north to south with approximately 30 feet of grade change between the front and rear of the lot. While the area in which the fill will be placed is relatively open, dense deciduous wooded area encompasses the rear yard of the site, south of the applicant's fence. 41®04 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Aanenson CUP 28 January 2016 ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Shorewood's Zoning Code requires a conditional use peimit.whenever more than 100 cubic yards of material is brought on to a site. This equates to approximately 10 dump truck loads of dirt. Issues associated with these types of requests 'are typically engineering related. Consequently, the plans were forwarded to the City Engineer, whose comments are provided in Exhibit F, attached. Grading, drainage and structural aspects of the proposed wall are addressed in the Engineer's report. From a planning perspective, the conditional use permit should address the potential impact on surrounding properties. At staff's direction, the applicant's consultants have revised their original plans so that no portion of the wall within the side yard setback area is higher than six feet, the height of a common fence. Any portion of the wall taller than six feet will be at least 10 feet from the side lot lines. The conditional use permit is recommended, subject to the City Engineer's recommendations. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Joe Pazandak Tim Keane Nathan Anderson Gloria Aanenson i i �y C�y�trJ � y �C) >C 0 CD CIO O O O dOIL I spa N A 0 250 500 1,C CHRISTMAS LAKE N. it r;kl7w i�61d L r 1 � S r \ I I (Subject Property � p Q O � J J_ W Z_ LO 6-0-0-0-6- Ln (f) V) V) V) to 0 LO 0 CR N -� Cl IM M 0 C14 0 40- :3 4-1 4j Ld 32 0 0 > c o E E 00 CL :3 =3 00 0 0 0 a 0 E c c @_ I (.D V) 0 0 0 c7i E E 4-j c L---J r4) c: c: C C: D a 0 0 -Y (L, MIILZ,9t,.00S 0 L) M U -0 60'OZZ 0 Qf C-3 ffi C) C (D 4) w j-, -I.-A M LL c: 0 X E c: c 05 0 0 0 — — — — — — — — CD Q) OBI — — — — — — — — — — V) < 0 C: 0 00 X OL LLI 0 0 W c :3 C) Q) Lin 0,; . .: 0 0 E go 0 Mal M 0 .2 c; QC5 Mal wo I— In Q) 0 LL. 4-J 0 Ol/ E c -Jlz Q) cn E U) 0 < E C) 0 Q) 0 0 0 42 0 P (D SCN :3 00 a) 0 0 z CIV 0 -0 0- (L) 0 C c) a 00 C V) L- > (-0 0 0 W M 0 c J -r n 41 0 Ln af c CD 3: 0 law Q0 41 0 L -C 0 c C) N am C) —C _S-- L- C) Ln 0) c II 4- Lu Q) r4-) :;:; Cl -W — -t L. (D C 0 0 (1) L- 0 >0, 0 CX > c U) Ln 0 0 0 c- L- +j > (L) L_ L. L Ln _C 0 W -0 CL C CY) n 0 4- 0 Exhibit B '0. (n _j 0 0 EXISTING SURVEY wQD -UNM NM&M'Mw' milm 4*mmN7 �Iq 7AAdw PIA OW6n 4 U" N GM a4 M wl NI 44M WWI 3W- 4N%M -W 1kM4WP*V- NMNMON- 9 / �s / �a . ° 41PM W*pw DW IR P--0 NW A- tienue 9 6 0Z `9 1 6£ti99 NW `uo4Bulwoo18 °A4AndjamW"49WMpAMIR "WR AmI Vpk&Ww" W1tm at gal RU°d ` ' 88do a 'PM jI 'M � WPd 4PA�C�°4 w4vM w°ti.°wN PMIa�I�Mlwtd 4•PAa°puoP�a°bna,4v.0 aw ""#I",4°°°'°" MI&w01 p*L'"dum"p°4WuWslAn X ,s4 0 � l8Ox3 Dols a'JX aJG � a e 6££99 NW 081d P � � M 9Z£66 4S PIO Z 6 6Z """p°'"B'"'° '"°° -am AN) 103rONd a3SOdOUd 33N341S3N NOSN3NVV sasl�daa�u3 au O puna0 I. ,I dno � ply �I .� 7oft A'Y04slpM* I 1 "° AM no AWN II P��OW Qloduid Wlq NBA4PWIN��AA�W WIPUS OuNAO°W. mWOO "9lailliv SAW V 7�+4P i L — — — I M. LZ,9ti.00S 60'OZZ C) I w�� o i OL O � LU ,zW w 1- I un °J 4� p O C Q I oo as Lu p U Q o L I I �0 O� W O a W I v o m 1 3 Q I J O Qj W N r Z J C m o _� p 3 O 3 b °��.• _ w a I Ir ,d m a U v 3 Li NO �` p 1 / � I 49• I I J Ol o Nr- 0) `t0 4 CID r- (0r- conoW)O (yjNr Ncp N N O Q U) 3 L �+ D N d 0 J =0U1_ z O w a- O > U Q cr E o Q C (n O :3 O � L a 0_ LL- LL- U) O V) J d O F LO L. N O Q_ Ln F- CO Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN PoaEOUIP HOUSE 1 lraw I - o' BOTTOM OF DOORSILL ® ® PROJECT SCOPE: + (_ 1w) TOW c a �raroH WAU ,,,,�,, ,,,, 1 11 O INSTALL BOULDER RETAINING WALL AS DRAWN TO CREATE NEW LAWN AND — I + (- 3•) ICJ ® 11 II ' PLANTBED AREAS. 1 EX � POOL AND PAVED AREAS ARE EXISTING. i E`X CONCRETE g I ® 11 PROPOSED FILL = 8W CY ¢ PR6OSED ADDITIONAL POOL DECK = I 1 ' 524 3F (hatched area) i 1 PROPOSED GRADING IS SHOWN BY 1 SPOT ELEVATIONS ON PLAN. • ROCK MULCH IX CONCRETE PATH i + -2' TOP OF WALK � — — — — (4) sow + 1 PLANTSED i i 1 � I POOL + (4W) I • N I PLANTBED � uw — — (40) —(i BOW EX CONCRETE (�.) (14') TOW Bow -10 1 �$ W (�4'�8')lOW 87 PBRANITE ExISTtNOCONCRETE �, 1 S T W ( -1' A- + ► I LAWN SOO � 01-01) + —�}... PROPO®EDFIREPLACE LAWN b� 1 LAWN I+ ( -8'-W) BOW i PLAHTBED 1 � 1 Sow PLAN IVED + (e' e•) Bow + (��) _ ° - -(� -0') -- -- a __ -- - - - - - -— ------ +(ao•)BOw -------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- Pw�reED Is A— BOW ( -1�'b1 — _ LO -0� ± - 10'-0') BOW — NEW GLACIAL — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — FIELDSTONE — — — — — — _1 -8' - - — — RETAINING-WALL — — — — — �� -- - -- — -- — - -- — — — -- — -- - — — -- - - -- — — -- — — -- — ±— )BOW — --- NATURAL AREA — — — — — — — 034) 9 bow °f + — — — — — — — — — — (-1a' -(•) - -- - -+ -- ------------------------------ -t_ a ocFI (-J3.3) aldo><a"d + - 15'3' etbottcrAOlience -------------------------------------------- I I i I TH.a.,drp.aa»Nbrtnaft oodeb•drw.„bIhspiopwlydOrourM IhNeW- *ftpMm•pe0co n, ornpW 1svdioijosdB•�a6uE�lon PROPOSED RETAINING WALL Onem*mm..( man ..�waarb..Naa•roo�aw.a.w`,am•r Iftd,,�Idfta ""P'.p°°"by r.a""� " ' Ground One Enter prises AANENSON RESIDENCE u» dMbpbnMtlnutM rRYngmirlmb •vitletlondaappip,tkw•nd 2112 W. Old Shakeoep Rrl_ 19325 Waterford Place Excelsior MN 55331 • 9iYd"I°°", .,.Md r o.a•.Imawa. m.,e.rs,I ��•� PrMI lMhen a Andpepl Exhibit D 10' o s' �a am"rm vaft ydaw OrGm Otto aw arwdmm Bloomingt( elo ENLARGED SITE PLAN January 5, 2016 he mow: WWI' MW 5 Ae I,ow„0; tel. 952 -8E wIm r,e eybw. •teu um. a•ed,hp a ergot• Wd aapyelpht. „M, ,,,,,rwo,.,lowmid . I 30 -INCH BOULDER 36 -INCH BOULDER 42 -INCH BOULDER 48 -INCH BOULDER TOPSOIL �- � =_ MIRAFI TYPE 14ON I- 1 (OR EQUAL) \ 1 IIII I 1 =1 I II I'- I I IIII \ II I I- \ IIII \I 1I I\I\ =12" MINIMUM OF--I \ I I FREE - DRAINING I =1 SOIL (SAND OR =1 GRAVEL) -III III -III � IIII \ II \ iI 11= \I \ \I \III -�� -(MIN) \ I I III III I I1= I I 1111111 I \III III III =1 I �I 1 11 \ I -III \I I =1 I Jill - VIII PROPOSED BOULDER WALL 9 -FOOT (MAXIMUM) WALL SECTION W9 (SCALE I12 "= I' -0 ") Vicker� engineering & Consulting, LLC i 4-9-41 village Woods ]rive E-icn Prairie, MN 55347 Phone: 952 -465 -8272 www.vickeryeng.com 9) 2015 Vickery Engineering& ConsuI6nv& LLC 111 0.. MIN I/ PROPOSED BOULDER RETAINING WALLS 19325 WATERFORD PLACE EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA SECTIONS AND DETAILS REV. No: I DATE: I DESCRIPTION 11 -0111 (MIN) 1/11/15 IREVISED BASED ON NEW GRADING PLAN, DATED 12/10/15 36 -INCH BOULDER 42 -INCH BOULDER 42 -INCH BOULDER 48 -INCH BOULDER 54 -INCH BOULDER TOPSOIL 11 111 I I1 111 I 1 �I 111 I II 11 I \I \ I— 1 111 I I —I 111 II MIRAFI TYPE 140N_ I__(OR EQUAL) II =1 I I =1111 I1 I1 I- III -III -I \ II \ I- -I I I1 I I =1 \ I III -III- I IIIIIII1 I II \ -III1 I II i 11 11= � III III =1 I I =1 -III I I I 111111 12" MINIMUM OF \_ \ - -1 FREE - DRAINING =SOIL (SAND OR GRAVEL) I =1 II -III III IIIII i � III\ I I III -I I. :111 =111 =1 I 1 :111 =1 1 -1 I I1 I \1111 I I� < 'III -III III -III III 1 1I III III 911 I\ -III \I I I I ,III ;,, I I I =I I I 111; 111; III =11 11 PROPOSED BOULDER WALL Z II -FOOT (MAXIMUM) WALL SECTION W9 (SCALE I12 "= 1' -0 ") SCALE: 0 I I I AS VERIFY LINE ABOVE MEASURES I -INCH. IF IT DOESN'T, ADJUST SHOWN SCALE ACCORDINGLY VEC PROJECT No: VEC 15 -233 DRAWN BY: RWV REVIEWED BY: VEC DATE: 1 11/17/15 SHEET: W9 IOF• 9 IGROUND ONE ENTERPRISES I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATIONS, OR REPORT WAS PR RED Y ME OR R M;Pm�FESS ECT SUPERVISION A H I') A DUL ICE ED IONAL ENGINEER D�R A�p7S; HE ST INNESOTA. Exhibit E / 4 SECTION DRAWINGS — PROPOSED A WSB Building a legacy — your legacy. January 25, 2016 Mr. Brad Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Conditional Use Permit 19325 Waterford Place WSB Project No. 02925 -051 Dear Mr. Nielsen: 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: 651- 286 -8450 Fax: 651 - 286 -8488 We have reviewed the plan submittal that includes the Certificate of Survey, Landscape Plan, and structural drawings and calculations forthe proposed retaining wall. Plans are prepared by Brandt Engineering & Surveying, LLC, Ground One Enterprises, and Vickery Engineering & Consulting, LLC. We have the following comments and recommendations for the Conditional Use Permit Application. General The proposed project will construct a retaining wall up to 10.5 feet high in the rear yard at 19325 Waterford Place. The proposed wall is a gravity boulder wall designed by Vickery Engineering & Consulting, LLC. 1. Prior to the start of any construction, permits will need to be obtained at a minimum from the following agencies: a. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (Erosion Control) Erosion and Sediment Control 1. All areas disturbed by construction activities will require restoration within 14 days of the completion of grading activities. 2. Erosion control such as silt fence will need to be installed and maintained through the construction period and the establishment of turf. 3. The owner will be required to sweep the street(s) to remove material that is tracked off the project site. A street sweeper with pick -up broom is required. Grading Plan 1. The landscaping plan is to provide contours of the site in the area of construction. The proposed finished grades.will need to ensure the stormwater runoff from the site do not flow onto an adjacent parcel from the side - yards, and does not adversely affect adjacent properties. We recommend a slight Swale be constructed between the bottom of wall and the side yard property line. 2. The owner will be responsible for damage to the curb and street due to heavy equipment and trucks hauling material to the site and grading the site. Exhibit F Equal Opportunity CITY ENGINEER'S STAFF REPORT wsbeng.co K:\OZBlsos Mr. Brad Nielsen Conditional Use Permit - 19325 Waterford Place January 25, 2016 Page 2 3. Storage of material in the roadway is not allowed at any time. Retaining Wall Construction 1. The proposed retaining wall encroaches five feet into the existing drainage and utility easement. If approved, we recommend the applicant be required to: a. Have a prepared recordable document for County records that indicates they owner will remove, replace, and restore the retaining wall and yard areas disturbed by utility construction in the easement permitted by the City, and any damage caused by the City for access of the easement. b. The owner is responsible for the costs of any required removal, replacement and restoration required for the permitted use of the easement by the City or others as permitted by the City. c. The documented requirements be recorded with the County and the affidavit of recording be submitted to the City. 2. The Engineer of Record will certify in writing to the City that the retaining wall has been constructed in accordance with the design drawings, details, and calculations. Final plans will need to be provided to the City before a permit to construct the improvements is granted. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information from engineering staff. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, P.E. City Engineer (651) 286 -8453 phornby @wsbene.com ph Ka02925- 05Ndm In \D— TTR_PPH- Mid-012516- CUP_19325 Waterford Pln. site pinn re,iew- Sulxninnl I..,