The URL can be used to link to this page

01-20-15 Planning Comm Mtg AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 20 JANUARY 2015 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6 January 2015 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE MADDY (Jan) MUEHLBERG (TBD) DAVIS (Feb) GENG (TBD) 1. MEET WITH PLANNING CONSULTANT (JOHN SHARDLOW) TO DISCUSS MATTAMY HOMES' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2. PREAPPLICATION — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued from 6 January 2015) Location: 24575 Smithtown Road (Minnetonka Country Club property) Applicant: Mattamy Homes 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2015 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Labadie, Maddy and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Sundberg Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for January 6, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 510. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 2, 2014 Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 2, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS Applicant: Jesse Kath Location: 25025 Yellowstone Trail Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Jesse Kath, 25025 Yellowstone Trail. He explained the Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. They are appointed by the City Council. The Commission's role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission's responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non - binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item Nvill go before the City Council on January 26, 2015. Director Nielsen explained that Jesse Kath oN -,ns the property located at 25025 Yellowstone Trail. The applicant proposes to bring in fill in excess of 100 cubic yards; about 6000 cubic yards. He is in the process of obtaining a C.U.P. to do that per the requirements of the Zoning Code. The property is zoned R -lA/S, Single - Family Residential/Shoreland, and is presently vacant. The lot is buildable but it does have soil issues. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 2 of 14 In 2014, as the result of neighborhood complaints, the City issued a stop Nvork order for fill and grading being conducted on the site Nvithout the necessary permits. The oN -,ner Nvas directed to remove approximately 1000 cubic yards of material from the site; that has been completed. Mr. Kath has commissioned an engineering firm to prepare a grading plan. The project involves removal of approximately 6000 cubic yards of material and replacing it Nvith the same amount of compacted soil capable of supporting a single - family home. The oN -,ner is exploring the possibility of using the excavated material to create a landscape berm along the Highwa -,T 7 side of the property, reducing the amount of material that must be removed. Staff favors doing that. He noted that earlier this evening Mr. Kath informed him that they are now proposing to use pilings for the structure rather than removing all of the bad soil and replacing it Nvith compacted soil. There Nvould still be a need for more than 100 cubic yards of fill. The grading plan submitted Neill still be accurate for the purpose of the C.U.P. He also noted that his original intent going into the meeting Nvas to continue the public hearing. Because a N-,-a-,- has been found to eliminate the need to remove all of the material they thought had to be removed and because a berm Nvill not be built, staff is recommending approval of the C.U.P. Mr. Kath is present to answer any questions. Mr. Kath explained the soil tests taken indicate they are not suitable for constructing a traditional style footing house on. He noted his C.U.P. application Nvould cover the Nvorst case scenario should 6000 cubic yards of material have to be removed and replaced. The revised proposal Neill require the use of 60 pilings. They Nvill be screwed doN -,n 20 — 25 feet until they reach hard earth. They Nvill then be attached to the house. That Neill only require a minimal amount of fill to be brought in for backfill purposes and class 5 rock for a driveway- for construction purposes. If the C.U.P. is granted the goal is to submit a building permit application in the next few Nveeks and hopefully start Nvork before road Nveight restrictions come into play. If not, construction Nvill begin in May. In response to a question from Commissioner Muehlberg, Director Nielsen explained the pilings are like large screws that Nvill be bored doN -,n into the ground until solid ground is reached. Grade beams are then generally poured around them. That becomes the foundation for the house. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. Ann Ra -,Tmond, who lives next to the subject propert-T, asked if there Nvould be any ramifications of bringing in fill or pilings to the abutting properties. Director Nielsen stated he did not think so and explained screNving pilings in is like operating a drill. He noted that staff does assess the condition of the roadwa -,T before the project is started and again after. Any damage caused by the construction vehicles Nvill have to be repaired by the applicant. Mr. Kath explained because the lot size is about 1.25 acres and because of setback requirements the house cannot be constructed closer than 50 feet to the edge of the lot on three sides and 10 feet on the fourth side. The setbacks Nvill be 50 feet on all four sides and therefore none of the proposed grading Nvill be done close to the property line. The grading Nvill be done primarily around the house. He noted that best case scenario is no dirt Nvill be removed from the site. Commissioner Labadie asked Mr. Kath if the concept of using pilings Nvas discussed Nvith his engineer for the project. Mr. Kath noted that he has used pilings on projects before. He also noted that it is very CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 3 of 14 expensive to haul out 6000 cubic yards of dirt. He stated that pilings Nyill outlive everyone in the room and there is about 99 percent certainty that the structure Nyill not shift. Therefore, the pilings option makes more sense. Labadie then asked if Mr. Kath's engineer has provided an estimate hoNy much fill Nyill have to be brought on to the site for the piling option. Mr. Kath stated a minimum of 1000 cubic yards. Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Kath if the neNy house Neill be his home or a spec house. Mr. Kath stated N-,-hen he bought the property two years ago his intent Nyas for it to be his home but it is now going to be a spec home. Mr. Kath displayed a rendering of the house. He stated he anticipates that the sale price of the property Nyill be around $900,000 after the house is built. The house Nyill have five bedrooms, four baths, and a four car garage and have about 4,400 square feet of finished space. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. Chair Geng asked if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has been involved Nvith the project. Director Nielsen explained that any building permit is revie�yed by the MCWD for a Nyater control permit. Commissioner Labadie asked if the City Engineer has revievyed this C.U.P. application. Director Nielsen responded yes and noted the Engineer had not seen anything relative to the berm. In response to another question, Nielsen stated the Engineer is not aNyare of the pilings because he just learned about them today. The pilings option Neill be subject to the Engineer's revieNy and approval. Chair Geng asked if the staff report Nyill have to be amended for the pilings before Council considers this C.U.P. Director Nielsen stated he Neill do a follovy -up report. Geng stated he assumes any recommendation by the Planning Commission should be subject to the approval of the pilings option by the City Engineer. In response to a comment from Ms. Raymond, Chair Geng noted the Shorevyood Zoning Code requires a C.U.P. for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for a variety of reasons. Commissioner Maddy asked if the berm option is no longer being considered. Mr. Kath confirmed that. Maddy asked if it is fair to assume that about the same amount of fill Neill be brought it to replace N-,-hat is removed. Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards and not to exceed 6000 square yards for Jesse Kath, 25025 Yellowstone Trail, subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and the recommendations identified in the staff report dated December 30, 2014. Chair Geng suggested approval also be contingent on the recommendations of the MCWD. Without objection from the maker or the seconder, the motion was amended to also include the recommendation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Motion passed 510. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:27 P.M CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 4 of 14 2. PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING TRADE CONTRACTOR Applicant: SKD Architects, Inc. (on behalf of Cambria, Inc.) Location: 23425 Smithtown Road (County Road 19) Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:27 P.M., noting the process Neill be the same as for the previous item. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for building trade contractor, requested by SKD Architects, Inc. (on behalf of the Davis Family LLC) for the property located at 23425 SmithtoN -,n Road. Director Nielsen explained that the Davis Family LLC oN -,ns the property located at 23425 SmithtoN -,n Road. SKD Architects, Inc., representing the LLC, has submitted plans for renovating the existing building on the property for use as a product shoe room and garage for Cambria products. Since this falls under the classification of "building trade contractor's shop" in the ShoreNvood Zoning Code, a C.U.P. is required. The property is zoned C -2, Service Commercial and contains 28,370 square feet of area. It is currently occupied by a vacant building measuring 56 feet x 56 feet containing 3136 square feet of floor area. One corner of the building is a little too close to the lot line. What is being proposed Nvill not make that any N orse. As part of the renovation, SKD proposes to relocate the parking lot currently in front of the building to the rear. It Neill meet the requirements of the City Code. The size of the building Neill remain the same and it Nvill be divided in two. One half Neill be used to store three passenger vans that are used to take clients around to look at various properties. The other half Nvill be used as a shoe room area for the Cambria products but it Neill not be used on a daily basis. The entire building Nvill have decorative stone around it. It Neill also be reroofed. No outside storage is proposed. What is being proposed Nvill result in a reduction in hardcover. It Nvill be reduced from 61.6 percent to 36.5 percent. The parking is adequate for the proposed use. Six outside spaces are proposed. The applicant strongly believes that many Nvill never be used at one time. This redesign Nvill be accompanied by a significant amount of landscaping. The submitted landscape plan exceeds the City's requirements by quite a bit. The plan includes satisA-ing the recommendations of the County Road 19 Corridor Study. One of the main recommendations of that is commercial properties along County Road 19 Nvould have evergreen trees along the rear of the properties so that over time they Nvould form a backdrop for the properties and screen the abutting residential properties. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: West: commercial office building; zoned R -C, Residential - Commercial North: County Road 19, then Nvetland and storage area for Shorewood Yacht Club, zoned C -2 East: Garden Patch Nurser`*; zoned C -2 South: large pond, then residential (in Excelsior) He noted that the applicant's request complies Nvith the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. He also noted that staff views Nvhat is being proposed as a drastic improvement to Nvhat is currently on the site and recommends approval. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 5 of 14 Dan Mulrennan noted he is present in place of the architect Steve Kleinman who Nvas not able to attend He stated that he thought Director Nielsen described what is being proposed accurately. Chair Geng stated the landscaping plan includes notes in four spots around the property indicating there Nvill be three inch dark shredded hardwood mulch in the planting beds. Figures 5 and 6 indicate the mulch Nvill be two inches deep. He commented that is a very minor discrepancy. Commissioner Maddy stated he interprets the drainage plan to drain to the east. He asked how the runoff from the new parking lot Nvill be managed. Director Nielsen explained that during construction erosion control has to be in place. The landscaping Nvill handle the runoff from the site. There currently is a drainage and utility easement on the south side of the property and from there the stormwater flows into the pond on the south. Commissioner Labadie asked if the drivewaN- and parking area Neill be paved. Mr. Mulrennan responded ves. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:31 P.M. Chair Geng stated from his vantage point it appears it Neill be a significant improvement to the site and that he is impressed Nvith the landscaping plan. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for building trade contractor for SKD Architects, Inc. (on behalf of the Davis Family LLQ subject to the recommendations identified in the staff report dated December 29, 2014. Motion passed 510. Chair Geng noted this item Nvill go before the City Council on January 26, 2015. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. 3. SITE PLAN REVIEW — PLANNING / HEATING CONTRACTOR Applicant: Tharaldson Plumbing and Heating Location: 5680 County Road 19 Director Nielsen explained Eric Tharaldson, oN -,ner of Tharaldson Plumbing and Heating, proposes to lease the property at 5680 County Road 19 from the American Legion Post next door. He intends to operate a plumbing and heating business from the existing building on the site. The site is occupied by an old gas station building that has been vacant for a number of years. It is zoned C -1, General Commercial and contains 13,414 square feet of area. The existing building measures 28 feet by 44.5 feet and contains 1246 square feet of floor area. The applicant Nvill remodel the inside of the building and improve the area outside of the building. Land uses and zoning surrounding the subject property are as follows. North: Retail store; zoned C -1 East: County Rd. 19, then commercial strip mall in Tonlca Bay; zoned commercial South: SmithtoN -,n Rd., then golf course; zoned R -IA, Single - Family Residential West: American Legion Club; zoned C -1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 6 of 14 In late 2013 Council approved an interim C.U.P. for this site as a bicycle repair business. The reason for it being interim Nvas that applicant did not Nvant to make some of the improvements that Nvere required by the Zoning Code because of the probability that the area Nvould be redeveloped in the next three to five Nears as part of the SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Area. That applicant decided not to move ahead Nvith his plans for the property. Mr. Tharaldson proposes to use the site plan that Nvas approved for the previous application. The new applicant has indicated he is Nvilling to make the improvements that are necessary and therefore Nvill not need a C.U.P. The current parking lot does not conform to ShoreNvood zoning standards Nvith regard to the lack of concrete perimeter curbing. The applicant proposes to add curbing in two areas as shoN -,n on the site plan. The applicant Nvants to retain the use of both driveNvays on the property for circulation purposes and is Nvilling to make one of them entrance only. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the folloNving. Plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning businesses, Nvithout fabrication or manufacturing, are alloNved as permitted uses in the C -1 zoning district. The proposal includes an overhead door to accommodate the indoor parking /storage of a company vehicle. The applicant has indicated that there Nvill be no outdoor storage, Nvhich Nvould require a C.U.P. The permit Nvould expressly state that outdoor storage of any kind is not alloNved. The applicant intends to build a cedar board -on -board trash enclosure on the north side of the building. That must be addressed in the plans. The applicant has not submitted a sign plan as of yet. The site plan indicates that the pylon sign on the corner Nvill be removed. The applicant intends to put up at least one Nvall sign and maybe two on the building. That Neill be addressed through an administrative sign permit. The existing building complies Nvith the C -1 district setback requirements but the current parking lot does not. He reiterated that the applicant proposes to modIA- the parking lot and use the driveway-s as they currentIv exist. Concrete perimeter curbing Nvill be installed. Asphalt Neill be patched in Nvhere it had previousIv been removed. The applicant intends to use the landscape plan that Nvas submitted for the interim C.U.P. application last Near. The landscaping at the rear of the building Nvas not required as part of the previous approval. This applicant has agreed to replace the landscaping in the northeast corner of the site Nvith three six -foot evergreen trees. He noted that the parking lot improvements and landscaping Nvill not be done until next spring. Therefore, the applicant must provide bids for that Nvork and an escrow agreement Nvill based on the bids. The cash or letter of credit escrow Nvill be for one and one -half times the amount of the bids and it must be submitted prior to the applicant occupying the building. The parking lot improvements and landscaping must be completed by June 1, 2015. He also noted that staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to its recommendations. Lon Tharaldson, the father of the applicant Erik Tharaldson, noted his son is a plumber in the State of North Dakota and that he is a plumber in the State of Minnesota. The father is also a master plumber in the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The father explained that he currently functions out of his two - bedroom bungalow located in the City of Richfield. He Nvent to North Dakota to help his son out for one Near, but wanted to return to Minnesota. He has Nvorked around the Lake Minnetonka area for 50 Nears. His son set him up Nvith the business structure, Nvhich is quite expensive for plumbing. His son had CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 7 of 14 indicated to him that he is Nvilling to come back to Nvork in Minnesota if his father could find a good place to Nvork from. He and his son are excited about their new venture. He thanked Director Nielsen for all of his help. Chair Geng stated the floor plan exhibit shows that the floor plan is oriented to the north. He thought it is actually oriented to the Nvest. Mr. Tharaldson concurred. Geng encouraged that orientation be changed before Council considers this application. Ruth Tharaldson, the mother of Eric Tharaldson (the applicant), stated that basically there Nvould not be any storage because plumbers take their vans home at night. She noted that all three of them are from Minnesota. Her son Nvent to Nvork in North Dakota for a few years and now Nvants to return to Minnesota to Nvork. Chair Geng asked who is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the island on the corner of the property at the Smithtown Road and Country Road 19 intersection. Director Nielsen explained that piece of land is located in the City of Tonka Bay; it Nvas part of the reconfiguration of that intersection but Shorewood has been maintaining it and Nvill continue to do so. In response to a comment from Geng, Nielsen explained that the Tonka Bay City Council had been Nvilling to adjust the municipal boundaries but the Shorewood City Council did not think it Nvould be Nvorth incurring the survey and legal costs to do so. Nielsen noted that he personally thinks Shorewood should oN -,n it if for no other reason people place a lot of signage on that corner and Shorewood cannot do anything about that because it does not oN -,n the land. LoNvell Day (Boone), 25 Pleasant Avenue, Tonka Bay, and a representative for the American Legion located at 24450 SmithtoN -,n Road, stated the Legion just Nvants to try and improve its property. The Legion needs to make it financially feasible for the Tharaldsons to have their business at that location. He noted that the Legion recently had a new roof put on the flat roof of the building on that site. Chair Geng stated there is no lease agreement in place. Therefore, he asked if the current applicant is the appropriate person. Director Nielsen responded yes and stated the applicant has control of the structure. Geng noted that what is being proposed Nvould be Nvelcomed because the site has been an eye sore for quite some time. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the site plan for Tharaldson Plumbing and Heating for the property located at 5680 Country Road 19 subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 510. Chair Geng noted that Council Nvill consider this item during its January 26, 2014, meeting. 4. PREAPPLICATION — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road (Minnetonka Country Club Property) Director Nielsen explained that Mattamy Homes has arranged to purchase the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property located at 24575 SmithtoN -,n Road. The property is zoned R -IA Single - Family Residential. The developer proposes to subdivide the property into 121 single - family residential lots. The MCC property is 116.9 acres in size. To do so requires an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive (Comp) Plan and, ultimately, approval of a planned unit development (PUD). Mattamy's preapplication request is to amend the Proposed Land Use Plan 2030 in the Comp Plan to change the land use CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 8 of 14 classification for the MCC property to LoNy Density Residential (1 — 2 units per acre). It is currently classified as Semi- Public. The change Nyould make the Comp Plan and the Zoning Map consistent. Shorevyood has adopted a two -step process for considering amendments to its Comp Plan. The preapplication stage alloys the applicant to appear before the Planning Commission and Council on an informal basis. The applicant can shovy their basic intent and the general nature of the proposal Nyithout incurring substantial cost. The purpose of the preapplication stage is to: 1. Familiarize the Commission and Council Nyith the proposal. 2. Review required information and identify any additional information necessary for proper request evaluation. 3. Refer further plans to appropriate commissions and outside agencies (e.g. parks, Nyatershed district, etc.) 4. Provide direction to the applicant (e.g. indication of priorities, etc.). 5. Determine a schedule for revievy of a formal application. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follovys. North: across SmithtoN -,n Road; single - family homes, zoned R -IA (1 unit per 40,000 square feet) and R -1C (1 unit per 20,000 square feet); plus commercial development, zoned C- 1, General Commercial (SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Area) East: commercial development, zoned C -1; public (City Hall/Badger Park) and single - family homes, zoned R -1C and R -IA South: single - family homes, zoned R -1C and R -IA West: single - family homes, zoned R -IA The developer intends to cluster the houses on the more buildable portions of the site. There are portions of the site that are loNy and have suspect soils. Those Nyill be set aside as green space. With regard to development issues, he stated that aside from the density /zoning issues staff has identified a number of issues relative to anv development of the subject property. Perhaps the most significant single issue has to do Nyith traffic /circulation. Single - family residential development generates approximately 8 -10 trips per day. The number of units proposed Nyould therefore generate 968 to 1210 trips per day. SmithtoN -,n Road, along the north side of the project and Country Club Road, along the east side of the site, are both designated as collector streets. The Country Club/Yellovystone Trail/Lake Linden Drive route is a substandard collector route, and it leads to the Highvmv 7/41 intersection Nyhich is severely congested. On the north end of Country Club Road, its intersection Nyith SmithtoN -,n Road should be examined also. Staff suggests that a traffic study be done that addresses Nyays to direct the new traffic to County Road 19, v hile minimizing the volume of traffic that goes to the south. Internally, the proposed site plan on the Conservation Development Concept Plan exhibit shovys oniv one connection to SmithtoN -,n Road Nyhich leaves a very long dead -end circulation pattern. That is Nyell over the 700 -foot length maximum for a cul -de -sac that the City Code requires. There is only one Nyay in to the north and to the south. Although it does not shovy Nyell on the site plan, the developer has indicated a Nyillingness to construct some sort of perimeter trail system for the property that Nyould be available for public CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 9 of 14 use. The City has plans in 2015 to extend to the east the neNy sidevyalk along SmithtoN -,n Road. The sidevyalk would be extended from the LRT Trail to the SmithtoN -,n Road and Country Road 19 intersection. During the January 29, 2015, Council and staff retreat Council Neill consider Nyhether to delay the SmithtoN -,n Road East Sidevyalk Extension Project, pending revieNy and approval of the MCC plans. Drainage is a significant issue that needs to be addressed in the applicant's plans. Mattainy representatives have suggested that the plans Nyill not only address the rate of storm Nyater leaving the site, but also the volume. The intent appears to be to keep as much Nyater on the property as possible. The minimum requirement for addressing drainage is that the rate of runoff after the site is developed cannot exceed the rate before the site is developed. The property for the most part drains to the southNyest. There is a system there that is somevyhat substandard and the Citv Engineer is somevyhat concerned about the outlet for that. The site is Nyell served Nyith existing sanitary seNver and municipal Nyater utilities. Both utilities serve the property. The Public Works Director has recommended that the sanitary seNyer be connected to the metro line that extends along Yellovystone Trail. The City Council has delayed plans for Badger Park improvements pending study of the Comp Plan amendment and revieNy of this property. At minimum, the City Neill have to determine Nyhether to take land from the project for park improvements, require cash in lieu of land and, if so, Nyhether to take the eight percent of raNy land value or the flat fee per lot alloyed by the Subdivision Code. He noted that due to the size and complexity of the project the City Council decided to hire an independent planning consultant to direct the public process and the information that floNys out from the City and to assess a broader scope of alternatives for the MCC property and its surrounding areas. Council Will select betNyeen two consultants during its January 12, 2015, meeting. The selected consultant Nyill start its Nyork the next day. One of the consultant's challenges Neill be to try to coordinate their efforts N ith those of the developer. While the developer has indicated that they do not expect to do construction in 2015, they Nyould like to have some sort of concept approval by early summer. Nielsen recommended that time be devoted for both Council and the Planning Commission to review the Comp Plan, particularly the goals, objectives and policies for each chapter contained in the Plan, as they prepare for the revieNy of the MCC plans. Regardless of hoNy the subject property ends up being redeveloped these policies serve as the Citv's guide. Nielsen noted that Rick Packer is present to talk about the project. Council Liaison Sundberg noted that the consultants that have been intervieNved are Nyell regarded in Minnesota. She also noted the City has hired a consulting firm to assess renevyable energy options in the City. She assumes the Planning Commission Nyill be kept informed of N-,-hat is going on Nyith that initiative. Rick Packer, a Land Development Manager Nyith Mattainy Homes, provided a little background about the company. It has been doing Nyork in this market for about eight Nears. Its home base is in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is the largest builder in Canada. In the TN-,-In Cities it is about the fourth largest builder in volume and fifth largest builder in number of permits. The company is privately ovmed; it is oN -,ned by one person. The oN -,ner is active in decisions made on a day -to -day basis. It has a number of vary large holdings in the TN-,-In Cities because the oN -,ner is a "land junkie ". The company s culture and ethic is very CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 10 of 14 different from a public company. The company name is a combination of the ovrier's two children's names — Matt and Amv. Mattainv has initialIv assembled Nvhat it considers a pretty unique team to come up Nvith its plan. The other Land Development Manager Nvith Mattainy grew up three blocks from the MCC property and his father runs a business in the City of Tonka Bay. Mr. Packer had been a project manager for Bear Path Country Club; therefore, he understands Nvhat goes into building a golf course in conjunction Nvith residential. His son has a degree in golf course management and his son educated him on all the different things he Nvould likely find when testing of the site for pollution, chemicals and so forth that Nvas put doN -,n on the MCC golf course to make the grass green. The company thought its employees had enough knowledge of the community and the industry to develop a plan that made sense. Mr. Packer highlighted a list of things that Nvere taken into consideration when preparing a draft concept plan. • There is no desire to create some grand vision that Nvould be a monument to the company. • There is no desire to change the zoning of the site Nvhich is one unit per Shorewood acre. • There is alreadv an issue Nvith traffic volume going doN -,n Country Club Road and ultimately to Highvmy 7. Therefore, a conscious decision Nvas made to not have an exit on to or from Country Club Road onto the property. • Company staff understood there Nvould be property line issues because the survey methods used 100 Nears ago are not as accurate as they are today. That Nvas taken into consideration. • Company staff understood Nvhere man)- of the flooding issues on the site Nvere. The plans stayed awav from those areas. • Company staff had no desire to put one house on every 40,000 square foot parcel of land on the site. The plan is to keep the houses on the high ground, disrupt as little of the site as possible Nvhile maintaining the density the site is zoned for. Sixty- -two of the acres on the site Nvill be preserved as open space. That leaves many opportunities that can be explored for the company, the residents in the area and the Citv. Mr. Packer explained that all stormNvater calculations have already been done. Back -to -back, 100 - hundred -Near events have been planned for. All stormNvater Nvill be conveyed through a 24 -inch pipe that currentIv leaves the site. The intent is to decrease volume of stormNvater leaving the site because there is a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requirement to keep the first inch of any rainfall on site. The intent is to have a buffer area around the entire development. The buffer Neill range in size from 100 feet to 40 acres. That Nvas done because residents did not Nvant to have houses backed up to them to avoid and- property line disputes there might be and just to be good neighbors. The majoritN- of the proposed lots Nvill roughly be 90 feet by 150 feet. That allows for adequately sized houses. The side yard setbacks Nvill be 10 feet. The first thought Nvas for the front yard setback to be 40 feet but consideration is being given to changing that to 30 feet depending on the quality of the soils in and- particular area. A concerted effort has been made to not back any houses up to streets or residences; the back of a house is not the most attractive side. The cul -de -sacs have been brought up closer to the streets for a variety of reasons, in particular to SmithtoN -,n Road and Country Club Drive. Things Nvill be constructed in a way that emergency vehicles Neill be able to enter directly on to some cul -de -sacs. The reason there is not another access on to SmithtoN -,n Road in the northNvest corner is there is a Nvetland there. CurrentIv it takes about 18 months to process a permit to fill in a Nvetland. That encourages developers not to do that. If Mattainy decides it Nvant to have another access onto SmithtoN -,n Road that CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 11 of 14 filling in of the Nyetland Nyould be part of the last phase of the project. There is no plan to fill in any other Nyetlands or Nyater features on the site. Mr. Packer noted Mattainv has tried to be respectful of the traffic concerns. He stated that it has notified all of the neighbors surrounding the site that there may be a possibility that surveyors may end up Nyallcing on a portion of their property and that the surveyors do not have any idea of N-,-hat is going on Nyith the site so there is no point in asking them any questions. The company has received calls from some residents and none seem to be surprised that the property Nyill be redeveloped. He also noted that the houses that Nyill be constructed Nyill be the same as to the ones Mattamv constructed in the Charlev Lake Preserve in the City of North Oaks. Mattainy is the first production home builder that has ever been alloyed to build in North Oaks. That subdivision opened in June 2014 and to date 43 of the 64 lots have been sold. It is Mattainy s fastest growing subdivision in the northern hemisphere. The prices range from $800,000 — $1.2 million. For the MCC site the base lot and house Nyill be in the $750,000 — $800,000 range. But, no one is going to build a base house on a base lot. Mr. Packer thanked Director Nielsen for all of the assistance he has provided. He offered to entertain any questions the Planning Commissioners may have. Chair Geng thanked Mr. Packer for providing an overvievy of N-,-hat Mattainy is considering. He also thanked Mattainv for its sensitivity to the residents in the area and for its desire to preserve open space. Council Liaison Sundberg thanked Mr. Packer and Mattainy for addressing the community environment and for proactively reaching out to the community. Chair Geng stated that Mr. Packer had indicated that the base lot and house Neill be in the $750,000 — $800,000 range and that the minimum lot site Nyill be 13,500 square feet. That size lot is quite a bit smaller than the Shorevyood acre (40,000 square feet). He asked N-,-hat Mattainy is proposing as a range of lot sizes. Mr. Packer explained in that price range all of its product is designed Nyith a 70- foot -Nyide footprint. Most builders for less than an acre lot Nyill cover the lot from setback to setback side /side. That is simple economics of about $2,000 a foot. Thev have not found the market Nyill pad- $2,000 a foot betNyeen 90- foot -Nyide lot and 100 - foot -Nyide lot. An -,T lot Na der than 90 feet is a Nyaste of land, a Nyaste of streets and a Nyaste of the financial viability of the project. The houses at Charley Preserve are on one acre lots. Unless there is a big spravyling house on those lots the houses look out of place because there are 5,000 — 6,000 square foot houses that sit on a 150-foot-Nvide lot. He thought the proposed houses Neill look better on a 10 foot side yard setback lots. He noted that Mattainy Nyants to make the most use of the site's density in a N-,-a-,- that is environmentally sensitive to the area. He stated nothing stops the company from putting doN -,n 60 helical footings and building houses N-,-here they should not be built. Mattainy Nyants to build the houses on the high spots and not N-,-here the flooding occurs. He noted the lots adjacent to open space Nyill not be as Nyide as 90 feet. He stated that Mattamv could go Nyith 100 - foot -Nyide lots but Nyill not because it Nyants the open spaces to be visible to people driving by and for pedestrian access throughout the site. He noted that Mattainy does not Nyant an -,T lots to be less than 150 feet deep. He stated if the lots Nyere to be made one acre lots then all of the open space goes aNya -,T. Director Nielsen stated the minimum lot Nyidth in the R -lA district is 120 feet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 12 of 14 Chair Geng stated that ovmers of properties in that price range may Nvant to have a pool. He questioned if there Nvould be room for pools on the lot sizes being proposed. Mr. Packer stated it Nvill not be possible to put pools in on many of the lots because the lot Nvill be up high. Director Nielsen asked Nvhat Mattainv s depth of the footprint generally is. Mr. Packer responded 50 feet. Mr. Packer stated if people are going to Nvant to build a pool they should select a lot that Neill accommodate that. Chair Geng noted the City s Comp Plan encourages adequate off - street parking. He asked if Mattainy foresees on- street parking. Mr. Packer stated Mattamv has not gotten that far in the design process. He explained a 32- foot -Nvide street face -to -face of curb allows for parking on both sides of the street. In order to reduce impervious surface to reduce runoff a 28- foot -Nvide street face -to -face curb may be constructed and parking Nvould only be alloNved on one side of the street. For a project Mattainy is doing in a northern suburb the street is 26 feet Nvide face -to -face and bump -outs are constructed for some on- street parking. Mr. Packer noted that each one of its houses has a minimum of a three car garage. There Nvill be parking for three vehicles outside of each car inside and then there Neill be room to park on the driveway. That amounts to being able to accommodate nine vehicles. Commissioner Maddy asked Nvhat the proposed ovriership structure is of the open space. Mr. Packer responded Mattainy does not know. Mr. Packer stated if the City Nvants to own the open space so everyone can use the amenities such as trails in the open space then the City has to maintain it. If the open space is going to be private and Mattainy builds the trails then there is a concern about the liability of opening the private space to the public. He noted that the space Nvill either be public or ov'ned by a homeowners association (HOA). Chair Geng stated his greatest concerns N ith the proposed project are the traffic impact and the entrance /exit on Yellowstone Trail. He noted that Director Nielsen had stated earlier that the realignment of the SmithtoN -,n Road and Country Road 19 intersection has reduced traffic on Country Club Road substantialIv. Commissioner Muehlberg also noted the heavy traffic when school lets out at that intersection; it backs up quite a bit. Mr. Packer stated the entrance /exit on to or off of SmithtoN -,n Road is proposed to be located a reasonable distance from the intersection. Muehlberg noted the increase of traffic on Yellowstone Trail Neill be problematic. Geng noted he thought it prudent that a very thorough traffic study be done. Mr. Packer stated that Mattamv Nvould have started that study alreadv but the Citv Nvants control over it because it may Nvant to expand it to more than this project. He then stated Nvhat is currently being proposed could amount to 1,000 vehicle trips a day spread throughout the day. Geng stated the City has heard complaints about traffic on Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive long before this project Nvas ever discussed. Mr. Packer stated that traffic entering on to Yellowstone Trail from the development Nvill divert it from going doN -,n Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail and on to Lake Linden Drive. Mr. Packer noted that Country Club Road is on the MCC property Nvithout an easement. That Neill have to be addressed. The public seNver line that runs across the property is not in an easement. Mr. Packer stated one cul -de -sac does meet the 700 foot maximum standard. OriginalIv there had been a second access to SmithtoN -,n Road but when Mattamv found out that access had been in a Nvetland delineation it pulled the access out. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 13 of 14 Chair Geng stated the concept plan shoNys an egress for an emergency entrance /exit to SmithtoN -,n Road in the northNyest corner of the site. He asked how that can be done through a Nyetland. Mr. Packer stated that has to be done through permitting. Mr. Packer stated if there Nyere to be an access point on to SmithtoN -,n Road on the Nyest side a person could go out and Nyest on Smithtov'n Road toNyards Highvyay 7. Commissioner Muehlberg stated there is no stoplight at that intersection of Eureka Road and Highvmy 7 so it is not easy to get on to Highvmy 7 very quickly. Chair Geng stated the concept plans shovy that holding ponds Nyill be added to the site. Mr. Packer confirmed that. Geng then stated that it is his understanding that Mattamy has some applications pending Nvith the MCWD. Mr. Packer stated that Mattamy has a 900 -unit development at Woodland Cove and has had to Nyork Nvith the MCWD on that. Mr. Packer clarified that the company has not submitted any applications to the MCWD for the MCC property but it has met Nvith MCWD representatives. Mattamy needs to have a plan before it can apply for any type of permit from the MCWD. Geng asked Mr. Packer if Mattamy representatives have spoken Nvith representatives from the Excelsior Fire Department (EFD) or the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) about concerns they may have. Mr. Packer responded no. Geng stated he assumes that Nyould be premature. Mr. Packer stated Mattamv has tried to limit communications Nvith the community until there has been more discussion Nvith Council and the Planning Commission. Geng noted that the City is going to hire a consultant on Monday, January 12, 2015, to assist the City Nvith planning activities associated Nvith this project and to take a broader vievy on the development in that area and the SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Area. He stated that before the Planning Commission moves forvyard Nvith this preapplication process he Nyould like the Commission to meet Nvith the consultant to discuss the consultant's vievys. He asked the Commissioners if they could meet on January 20 if the consultant could accommodate that. Mr. Packer stated he knoNys both consultants the Council is going to consider and both are top notch. They both propose solutions that make sense. After discussion, there Nyas consensus amongst the Commissioners to meet Nvith the consultant on either January 20 or February 3. Geng moved, Davis seconded, continuing this discussion about Mattamy's preapplication for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property until the Planning Commission has had an opportunity to meet on January 20 or February 3, 2015, with the planning consultant the City is going to hire for the MCC redevelopment project. Mr. Packer stated that continuing this discussion Nyould result in a loss of 30 days in the process for him. He noted he heard the concerns expressed this evening and he Nyill talk to the consultant. He explained that the next time he comes back before the Planning Commission Mattamy Nyill be submitting a formal application so it does not lose the 30 days in the process. He clarified he is respectful of Nvhat the Commission Nyants to do but Mattamy needs to close on the purchase of the property in the middle of this coming summer. He stated Mattamy Nyants to start soliciting public comment soon. In response to a question from Maddy, Director Nielsen clarified the Planning Commission does not need to take any formal action on the preapplication. Nielsen stated the issues and concerns conveyed this evening have been noted. He then stated if the consultant can meet Nvith the Commission on January 20 it Nyould keep things on schedule for the Council to discuss the preapplication during its January 26 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2015 Page 14 of 14 meeting. Nielsen noted that both planning consultants are aware of Mattamy's desire to get far enough along in the planning process to purchase the MCC property this summer. Motion passed 510. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There Nvere no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Chair Geng noted that on either January 20, 2015, or February 3, 2015, the Planning Commission Nvill meet Nvith the planning consultant the City Council Nvill select during its January 12, 2015, meeting for planning services related to the residential redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property. Director Nielsen stated the City has started to receive applications for consideration during the Planning Commission's February 3, 2015 meeting. 8. REPORTS Liaison to Council Planning Commissioner Labadie reported on Council's December 8, 2014, meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC • Other 9. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 6, 2015, at 9:04 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder 51. r' yx lop, 'TI dlr 7, !'f r � 'a MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS CITY OF SHORE WOOD Design with community in mind 3p Stantec (50 Stantec December 10, 2014 File: 193899000 Attention: Brad Nielsen, Community Development Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 -8926 Dear Members of the Consultant Selection Committee, Reference: Proposal to Provide Professional Planning Services Associated With the Redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club Property I want to begin by thanking you for inviting me to submit a proposal to help your City respond to the challenges and opportunities that the closure and redevelopment of this venerable golf course presents. I know from several past examples of comparable land use changes that your community's responses will come in stages. Land use decisions are frequently met with shock, anger, fear and distrust and it is very important to understand and respect those feelings as you design and begin this planning process. This proposal is informed by my experience and the background I have been able to glean through one meeting and some phone calls and emails. Several assumptions had to be made to design this process and if we are fortunate enough to win this assignment, I look forward to meeting with you and confirming or changing each of these assumptions. Having said that and acknowledging that the process can and should be refined, I am very confident that the approach and strategy this proposal represents is proven. No one can guarantee that there won't be controversy, or even organized opposition. What I can say is that this approach will build trust and steadily shift attitudes away from concerns and toward opportunities. The community will see that you understand the significance of this land use change and you are approaching it in an organized and professional way and you are empowering them to help guide your decisions in well- reasoned ways. It is said later in the proposal, but it is important enough to be said twice. This entire process is designed to put the City Council in the best possible position to make the key decisions about this redevelopment. We will engage the community and work closely with the staff, community organizations, the developer, other governmental agencies and others, but the City Council is our client. Before closing, I want to acknowledge that I have not included a lot of examples of past work or references. I am more than happy to provide as much or as many as you like. My background and experience is well known to Brad Nielsen, Tim Keane and Bill Joynes, but again let me know if more background information is needed. In regards to the Advisory Panel concept and the strategy of intentional participation (invited and supported participants) the most recent application was in the City of Richfield. Richfield had denied a very controversial affordable housing proposal and the experience had triggered well organized citizen opposition and left the community with a lot of residual anger and distrust. The City Council asked the staff to formulate policies to make sure they never repeated the same painful and disruptive experience again and the staff had the wisdom to assert that a broader community conversation was needed. We were retained to help Richfield prepare and adopt a Housing Vision. With my advice the Council appointed a Housing Vision Advisory Panel that included representatives from the neighborhoods Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process (50 Stantec previously embroiled in the controversy (but not necessarily leaders of the opposition) as well as a broad cross section of community organizations, boards, commissions and citizens at large. The details of the process aren't directly relevant, but they followed a similar approach to the one recommended in this proposal. It included presentations about the future, demographics, broader economic development considerations, tours of successful projects that incorporated elements of affordability and a visioning and goal setting process. The Panel ultimately voted unanimously to recommend the goals and vision to the City Council with a more balanced and realistic approach to incorporating affordable housing. The Panel members presented their findings and recommendations to the HRA and City Council with our support. Several of these members were later appointed to a Housing Advisory Committee and have been working to prepare and recommend policies and strategies since the adoption of the vision. Mayor Debbie Goettel, or Community Development Director John Stark are well aware of that work and would be happy to discuss it with you. There are some strategic aspects of this process that I prefer to wait to discuss with you in person. So let me close by thanking you again for this opportunity. I would be honored to assist the City of Shorewood to formulate and implement your response to this once in a lifetime opportunity. Sincerely STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. John W. Shardlow, FAICP Senior Principal Phone: (651) 967 -4560 Fax: (651) 636-1311 John.Shardlow @stantec.com Attachment Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process 5 Stantec Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION, PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ............................................. ..............................1 1.1 Philosophy, Experience and Approach ...................................... ..............................2 2 DRAFT PROCESS AND SCHEDULE ................................................................. ..............................3 2.1 Task 0: Project Initiation .................................................................. ..............................3 2.2 Task 1: Kick -off Meeting ................................................................. ..............................3 2.3 Task 2: ULI Minnesota Sponsored Navigating Your Competitive Future (optional) .......................................................................................... ..............................3 2.4 Task 3: Visioning Workshop ............................................................ ..............................4 2.5 Task 4: Project Goals and Vision Statement ............................... ..............................4 2.6 Task 5: Water & Natural Resources .............................................. ..............................4 2.7 Task 6: Transportation, Traffic Management .............................. ..............................4 2.8 Task 7: Land use .............................................................................. ..............................5 2.9 Task 8: Concept Alternatives ........................................................ ..............................5 2.10 Task 9: City Council /Planning Commission Joint Work Session (Optional butRecommended) ...................................................................... ..............................5 2.11 Task 10: Convene Regulatory Agencies ..................................... ..............................6 2.12 Task 11: Prepare the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) .....................6 2.13 Task 12: Community Open House ................................................ ..............................6 2.14 Task 13: PUD Public hearing at the Planning Commission ....... ..............................6 2.15 Task 14: City Council Meeting (s) .................................................. ..............................6 2.16 Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process .............................7 3 COST OF SERVICES ......................................................................................... ..............................8 4 APPENDICES .................................................................................................... ..............................9 Appendix A— John Shardlow Resume ....................................................... ..............................9 Appendix B — 2015 Rate Sheet ................................................................... .............................12 Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process 1 INTRODUCTION, PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Shorewood is faced with a challenge that has communities across the United States, the closing of a golf course. Hundreds of courses have closed across the US, including at least nine in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area in recent years. Knowing this fact is interesting, but it does nothing to help Shorewood respond to the magnitude of change that is represented by the closing of the Minnetonka Country Club. It is safe to say that there is no one in the community who remembers Shorewood without the golf course. It is part of the fabric of the community and it is deeply embedded in the identity, image and character of Shorewood. Beyond the social, psychological and emotional implications of this change, its sheer size, context and relationship with surrounding neighborhoods will inevitably raise issues and concerns. Our team brings nearly 40 years of broad and deep experience with land use and community development. We have assisted hundreds of communities and developers to effectively manage major land use changes and that experience has taught us several key lessons that will inform and shape the approach we recommend that you take to respond to this challenge. The first lesson is that major land use changes almost always trigger emotional responses within communities. Unfortunately there are too many examples to count where communities focused on the technical aspects of land use change and ignored the people part of the equations. The second and equally important lesson is that the technical parts also have to be right. The approach that we are recommending for this process reflects our understanding of both of these lessons. Our experience with other major land use changes has also taught us that community responses occur in a series of stages. It is critically important to understand where project participants are in that cycle because the process will not be successful if people are still grieving when we are asking them to envision the best redevelopment outcomes. Obviously different people proceed through these stages at their own pace, but sensitivity to these feelings is important. A. Community Engagement A change of this magnitude will be of great interest to anyone who knows the community, but particularly anyone who has made an investment in the community. It is essential that accurate and timely information be made available to the community at large throughout this process. Frankly, it is very important that the City shape and control the messages because if you don't the void will be filled with misinformation. It is also important that the City provide opportunities for interested stakeholders to participate in the process in constructive ways. A fuller description of these opportunities is provided later in this document, but the core of our approach is the idea of intentional participation. There will be opportunities for the general public to monitor the process, ask questions and provide input at every stage, but the primary working group will be an Advisory Panel. This panel will consist of representatives from every key stakeholder group in Shorewood. It will include representatives from each of the surrounding neighborhoods, but it will also include the business community, civic groups, the faith community, schools, environmental organizations and others deemed important by the City Council. B. Land Owner and Developer's Rights and Role in the Process Just as meaningful community engagement is essential to success, so too is the recognition of the land owner and developer's rights and the need for them to participate effectively in the planning process. We believe that the community needs the space to complete some high level thinking about the future of the golf course and surrounding land before being confronted by a specific proposal from the developer. We also know that the developer intends to make a very substantial investment in the community and deserves the opportunity to both be fully informed and to be able to participate in meaningful ways throughout the process. Simply stated, it serves no purpose to emerge from the planning process with expectations that the developer can't deliver. Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process 1 1.1 Philosophy, Experience and Approach If we are selected to serve as Shorewood's consultant the City Council is our client. The process that we have designed and the approach we are recommending is all focused on putting the Mayor and City Council in the best position to make the right decisions about the redevelopment of this property. We will work closely with the staff, communicate with and engage the community, other regulatory agencies and interest groups and we will work closely with the developer, but the Council is our client. We have found from experience that community representatives who commit the time to understand complicated land use issues can and will make positive contributions to their communities. We have also found that being intentional about inviting representatives from a broader set of stakeholders results in a more balanced dialogue and better outcomes. Unfortunatelywe have also witnessed numerous times when misinformation, fear and anger have led to controversy, obstruction, delay and even failure. While no one can guarantee with certainty that every aspect of a process will come off without a hitch, variations on the approach we are recommending have been very successful in several comparable cases. A. The Role of the Planning Commission The Planning Commission is responsible for preparing and recommending a plan for the community's future. This project will involve some level of Comprehensive Plan amendment so the Commission should actively participate in this planning process. The entire Commission could participate as part of the Advisory Panel process, or representatives of the Commission could be appointed and the remainder receive frequent updates. A Planning Commission member could chair the Advisory Panel, or the panel could function more like a focus group. Either approach could work effectively depending on the City's preferences. B. Advisory Panel The keyword in the name is advisory. The City Council will be inviting a broad and diverse mix of community stakeholders who are willing to make the time commitment necessary to participate in this process. Their invitation is with the clear understanding that theywill be provided with a wealth of information about the future redevelopment of the golf course property and will be able to help shape the process and its outcomes, but their role is advisory. It is very important that everyone understand that there is one and only one decision maker in this process and that is the City Council. We are often asked about the ideal number for the Advisory Panel. The answer is that we would always rather facilitate a larger group than run the risk of leaving out a group that should be represented. We have successfully managed groups as small as 12 and as large as 46. The Panel should definitely include a balanced number of representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods, but neighborhood interests must be balanced by community wide interests. We urge you to appoint representatives who pledge to bring an open mind to the process. With all due respect, we strongly urge you not to politicize the selection process. The inherent balance of the panel should come from the identification of every important stakeholder group. Once those people are appointed they will be asked to participate as individuals and not necessarily feel compelled to represent the interests of their group. It should also be understood and clearly communicated that this Advisory panel process is in addition to the normal development review and approval process. Any individual or group that chooses will be able to participate and provide testimony before the Planning Commission and City Council. C. Website, MindMixer In addition to the intentional community participation represented by the work of the Advisory Panel the process will also provide full access to all of the work product at every stage. As the Process Diagram (Figure 1) illustrates all of the information assembled for every meeting will be made available on the website at the completion of each session. Opportunities to ask questions and provide comments will be provided. We can either do this with the City's existing website, or provide a link to a project MindMixer site. This is an enhanced community engagement tool that Stantec can provide to the City at no cost. It is a highly interactive and effective engagement tool that will provide the City Council with a great deal of information about community opinions about the redevelopment process. Participants need to complete Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process 2 a simple registration in order to participate through the MindMixer portal. Once that registration is completed all of the input received can be mapped geographically and summarized by a number of other characteristics. What is also very effective about MindMixer is that every question that is asked is answered by a person identified by name and a picture on the site. It is more personal and because participants are registered, we have found the process to be more civil and respectful. This is a relatively new tool in our toolbox, but references are available upon request. 2 DRAFT PROCESS AND SCHEDULE The process description that follows is based on a number of assumptions and was produced without any consultation with City staff, the Developer or the City Council. There is abundant flexibility available and our hope is that if we are selected we will meet, roll up our sleeves and talk through every aspect of this draft process. There are some aspects of the process that are firmly recommended. These include the practice of meeting with the City staff prior to everyworkshop and timing project communications with the completion of Advisory Panel and other meetings. We could also accommodate more community -wide open houses, a tour of comparable developments, or opportunities for general public input. Every other aspect of the process is open for discussion, including the number, frequency and focus of the meetings. 2.1 Task 0: Project Initiation If we are selected as your consultants we will meet with City staff and other City representatives and work through a final scope of services, schedule and budget. We are very open to keeping the cost of our services down by utilizing staff resources and those available to the developer, as we prepare for every meeting. We will assist the City in selecting and recruiting the Advisory Panel members. We will help identify meeting venues and finalize the schedule. We will also meet with the Developer and talk through roles, responsibilities and expectations. 2.2 Task 1: Kick -off Meeting At the first meeting we will welcome the Advisory panel members and describe their role in the process and the City Council's expectations for their participation. The project schedule will be shared, along with meeting times and locations. The members will be provided a three ring binder with dividers for storing handouts from every meeting. The remainder of the meeting will be a presentation of background information from the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and broader permitting and regulatory requirements. 2.3 Task 2: ULI Minnesota Sponsored Navigating Your Competitive Future (optional) Before turning to issues, opportunities and concerns related specifically with the redevelopment of the golf course property, the next meeting provides a chance to step back and take a broader look at the City of Shorewood, its vicinity and opportunities. ULI Minnesota offers a free program to select Minnesota communities that contains important information about the economy and the real estate development industry. John Shardlow serves on the ULI Minnesota management Committee and has volunteered on nine panels in other Metropolitan Area communities. He has discussed the possibility of scheduling a session in Shorewood and there is schedule availability and interest to conduct a session in the City. The program also contains a deep analysis of the community's demographics, its housing stock and market conditions. This information is developed by Excensus and goes well beyond the information contained in census data. The session also contains an expert panel of members that have no pending connections with the community. The panel normally consists of one or more developers, a municipal finance expert, a planner and related experts. This group provides their unbiased and candid observations and advice regarding the information assembled by Excensus and the ULI Minnesota staff. Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process 3 2.4 Task 3: Visionina Worksho This session will start by asking the Panel members to identify any and all of the issues that they think will be important to address through the planning process. These issues will be prioritized. It will continue with the identification and prioritization of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT). This will be followed by a Survey of Visual preferences and conclude with a Visioning exercise. 2.5 Task 4: Project Goals and Vision Statement The information generated in the issue identification and SWOT analysis will be converted into a draft set of goals. These goals will be printed out poster sized and will be revised through a facilitated discussion. The objective is to conclude the meeting with a working draft set of goals for the redevelopment project. Similarly, the aspirations contained in the Panel members vision statements will be distilled and summarized and alternative draft vision statements will be produced. These will be reviewed and discussed with the objective of reaching a working draft version of a vision statement. The meeting will conclude with a discussion and hopefully consensus about how the goals and vision statements should be revised. 2.6 Task 5: Water & Natural Resources The presentation will include a description of the predevelopment condition of the site resources -water resources, wetlands and upland vegetation. It will also include a description of the existing (current) conditions on the property: • Topography • Soils • Land Cover • Drainage patterns • Infrastructure • Water resources, wetlands, uplands (key features to protect) It will also include a review of the relevant regulatory requirements, including: • City of Shorewood • Minnehaha Creek Watershed District • MNDNR • MPCA Finally, it will identify the opportunities available through various redevelopment approaches including: • Large scale: Conservation development • Medium Scale: Ecological restoration opportunities • Small scale, on -site Best management Practices (BMPs) 2.7 Task 6: Transportation, Traffic Management While the ultimate contents of the workshop will not be fully known until meetings and further discussions with the City and Client, it will likely include the following topics: Potential Transportation Topics: • Transportation System • Roadways ■ Jurisdiction ■ Functional Classification • Transit Routes • Bicycle Routes • Pedestrian Trails Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process 4 • Access /Mobility Relationship • Traffic Safety • Roadway Capacity • Roadway Congestion o Volume -to- capacity • Future Transportation Needs • Transportation & Land Use Relationship • Trip Generation • Future Roadway & Intersection Improvements • Background traffic growth • Development - related traffic • Intersection Control Evaluation • Traffic Signals • Roundabouts • Alternative Intersection Concepts • Transportation Funding Sources, Programs, & Strategies In addition to staff time required to develop the workshop presentation, this task also includes two (2) meetings with the City staff to first discuss the workshop outline /topics, and then review the presentation materials prior to the workshop. 2.8 Task 7: Land use This meeting will analyze land use issues and consider whether any uses other than single family residential are appropriate or beneficial on the subject property. The site will be analyzed in its neighborhood context considering relationships with adjacent land use, compatibility issues and potential opportunities. Alternative housing types and choices will be discussed as will the potential for providing a different configuration of neighborhood commercial development on or near the property. Trail corridors and open spaces will also be identified, illustrated and evaluated. 2.9 Task 8: Concept Alternatives All of the work from workshops 5, 6 & 7 will be synthesized and evaluated. Two or three intentionally high level development concepts will be prepared to guide discussion. These concepts will be provided to the Developer and their representatives. The first part of the meeting will focus on the preferences of the Advisory panel members. The Developer will then be provided time to respond to the alternatives and the comments that have been made by the Panel members. The objective of the meeting will be to select a preferred alternative, although minority opinions will also be recorded. The Consultant will provide an outline of the report to the City Council and work with the Advisory Panel to identify additions, deletions and other changes to better reflect the work that was completed and the opinions and recommendations of the Advisory panel members. 2.10 Task 9: Citv Council /Plannina Commission Joint Work Session (Optional but Recommended) This meeting could be considered the completion of the Advisory Panel's work, or they could remain involved for the environmental review stage of the process. There are definite advantages for them to remain engaged beyond this point, since most neighborhood opposition asserts negative environmental impacts. With the Consultant's assistance the Advisory Panel will present their findings and recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. There will be ample time for questions and answers and dialogue between the Council and Panel members. The developer will then present their response to the Advisory Panel report and present their preliminary concept plan to the community. If there is alignment between the Panel recommendations and the Developer's concept plan the City Council could proceed to order the preparation of an Environmental Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process 5 Assessment Worksheet (EAW). If there is substantive disagreement between the Panel recommendations and the Developer's proposal additional meetings may be necessary to reach alignment. 2.11 Task 10: Convene Regulatory Agencies At the outset of the EAW process the City will invite representatives of every key agency that reviews EAWs in the region to a meeting. The Consultant will facilitate this meeting and present a summary of the Advisory Panel's work. The Consultant will then facilitate a discussion with agency representatives proceeding through the review questions on the EAW form. The questions and discussion will essentially establish the scope and focus of the environmental review and also solicit input and recommendations from each of the agencies about the key issues, questions to be addressed and the identification of any studies or other resources that they are aware of that would improve the EAW. 2.12 Task 11: Prepare the Environmental Assessment Worksheet EAW Working in collaboration with the City staff and the developer's representatives the Consultant will prepare the EAW. Depending on the input received from agency representatives and the significance of issues draft responses may be sent to them for review prior to publication 2.13 Task 12: Community Open House All of the information generated through the Advisory Panel process, a summary of the environmental review and the Developer's concept plan will be available for community review. The session should begin with a welcome by the Mayor and /or City Administrator, followed by a summary presentation. Then members of the Advisory Panel, staff, Consultants and the Developer and their representatives should all be available at stations distributed throughout the meeting space. Comment cards will be available for use and will be collected and recorded after the meeting. 2.14 Task 13: PUD Public hearing at the Planning Commission The nature and scope of the Comprehensive Plan amendment remains to be seen. The City could decide to process the Comprehensive Plan amendment first and then turn to the zoning requests (presumably PUD), or the two actions could be processed simultaneously. It is understood that the City cannot give final approval until after the Metropolitan Council has completed its review and the Council takes final action. 2.15 Task 14: City Council Meeting(s) It is impossible to know at this point what the community sentiments will be at this point in the process or if there will be organized opposition. Different scenarios will dictate different responses. Again, we don't know if the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning actions will be done together or separately. The nature of the amendment is of sufficient significance that the Citywill want to work closely with the City Attorney in making the record in support of approval and preparing and adopting a resolution approving findings of fact. This will likely take an additional meeting. Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process 6 MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS JANUARY 2015 • Contract Advisory Panel Selection Meeting versus Outside Resources Meetings with Land Owner, Developer MAY CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES • Evaluate Alternative Scenarios • Developer Responses • Review, Discuss, Select Preferred Alternatives • Discuss Outline of Panel's Report to City Council i ----------- F'' KICK -OFF MEETING Expectations Roles & Responsibilities Background Information • Comprehensive Plan • Zoning • Broader Regulatory Process Schedule • Communications eQ------' ------------------ CITY COUNCIL/ PLAN NINGCOMMISSION JOINT WORK SESSION (OPTIONAL) • Advisory Panel Presents Summary of Process and Recommendations • Developer Responds to Advisory Panel Report and Presents Preliminary Concept • City Council orders an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) FEBRUARY MARCH i'JIINNES(., )a SPONSORED NAVIGATING YOUR COMPETITIVE FUTURE (OPTIONAL) ULI Minnesota Program • Understanding Current Market Realities • Deep Analysis of City's Demographics • Housing Stock Market Forces • Input from Expert Panel JUNE CONVENE REGULATORY PROCESS (Representatives from Regulatory Agencies) • Present Background, Preliminary Concept Plan • Summary of Key Issues, Community Expectations • Agency Representatives Identify Issues, and Resources • Establish Communication Links for Follow Up • Schedule; Scope and Focus of EAW �,l CEO iSIONING WORKSHOP • Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats • Survey of Visual Preferences • Visioning Exercise 0 APRIL 2015 0 & 0 PROJECT GOALS & WATER & NATURAL VISION STATEMENT RESOURCES TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT • Discussion Draft • Natural Resources Inventory & • Transportation System Vision Statement Assessment Roadways, Transit, Bicycle • Summarize - • Issues Associated Pedestrian Agree on Revision with Redevelopment • Access /Mobility Process (Opportunities & Constraints) • Safety, Capacity, • Topography, Soils, Land Congestion Cover, Drainage Patterns, • Trip Generation - Demand ---- - - - - -- 8_ Infrastructure, Water Resources, Wetlands, Uplands •Future Improvements • Intersection Alternatives --------------------------- ------- - - - - -- -- -- - -' • City of Shorewood, MCWD, • Funding, Programs, MNDNR, MPCA Strategies • Large, Medium, & Small Conservation Development -------------------------- Approaches M. PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) (Hosted by Advisory Panel) • Brief Presentation Summarizing Process • Presentation of EAW Contents, Agency Comments, City Responses • Comment Cards, Web Site, Mind Mixer o r MEETING #12 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE ---- - - - - -- '----- - - - - -- MEETING #13 PUD PUBLIC HEARING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION `T� 00 • Community, Neighborhood Context • Opportunites in Surrounding Area • Housing Choices? • Neighborhood Commercial? • Trails • Open Space Network ®o w7 0 Staff Meetings Meetings /Workshops Newsletter Webpage Mindmixer Stantec Figure 1 7 3 COST OF SERVICES There are several factors that will determine the cost to complete this planning process. We are very open to pursuing any of a number of strategies to manage costs, but we also acknowledge that this process is in response to a land use change of major significance and will almost certainly result in a development of great value. Given these considerations we would strongly discourage short cutting or rushing the process. One of the main ways in which the cost of the Consultant's services can be reduced is by information gathering and meeting administration by the City staff. Any work that can be done by others can reduce our time and fees. Likewise any information or resources that the Developer has available can also save time and cost. We will also provide a very capable day to day project manager with a charge rate substantially lower than John Shardlow's rate to manage costs. The other factor that will significantly impact the amount of Consultant time on the project has to do with the exact role the City wants us to play. The process we have described above anticipates a collaborative approach with the City staff and eventually with the Developer and their representatives. Our time and effort is focused on producing the content and materials for the meetings and facilitating them. Experience has taught us that a stronger management role could mean 10 or more hours per week during the course of the project. The final consideration is that this will be a dynamic process with numerous participants. It is impossible to know at the outset exactlywhat the course of the process will be. One of the greatest values we bring to this assignment is our experience in navigating complicated, multi- faceted and often controversial projects. We are confident we can advise you effectively regardless what transpires. We just can't tell you exactly what that will entail because there is no way to know what challenges and surprises may emerge. Time will be billed in accordance with the 2015 rate Sheet that is attached as an appendix to this document. The following assumptions and estimates are presented as a foundation for contract negotiation: Project Management From experience we estimate that a project of this magnitude will demand between 5 and 10 hours per week of basic coordination and management activities. If this is averaged to 7.5 hours per week times the 22 weeks assumed on the process schedule that totals $32,175. Proiect Initiation, Workshops 1 - 8 and Meetings 9 through 14 Every one of the workshops and meetings require different levels of preparation and different numbers of staff experts. We will utilize a day to day project manager to manage costs and we are assuming that City staff and others have a lot of the information needed to provide the background for several of the workshops and are available to assist in tracking down information that is not currently available. With these assumptions we estimate that we can prepare, produce, present and summarize the material for all of the workshops and meetings for $47,270. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The cost of preparing the EAW and facilitating the recommended interaction with the reviewing agencies could vary significantly depending on the issues raised by the community and agency representatives and the specific role the City chooses to have the Consultant play in the process. The cost could range from $15,000 to 30,000. Communications: At the conclusion of everyworkshop and meeting materials will need to be posted to the website, along with a written summary of the meeting. We estimate approximately $500.00 per meeting. Given the estimate of 14 meetings this equals $7,000.00 Estimated Total: $101,445 to $116,445. Stantec I City of Shorewood, Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process 8 John W. ShardIOW FAICP Principal -in- Charge (3 Stantec Mr. Shardlow has extensive and wide - ranging project experience serving clients in both the public and private sectors. He has frequently been called upon to lead multi - disciplinary teams of consultants in completing large, complicated planning projects. John's skills include project planning for residential, commercial, mixed -use, industrial, and institutional developments; comprehensive and community planning; and preparing redevelopment plans, tax - increment financing plans, subdivision regulations, and environmental assessments. He is a highly experienced facilitator and an expert on innovative community engagement programs. John also frequently provides expert testimony on matters related to planning. John has been involved in planning and zoning education for lawyers, planners, and elected and appointed officials for 36 years. He regularly prepares and teaches seminars through the League of Cities, and has developed and taught classes through Government Training Services since 1980. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1978 Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1978 REGISTRATIONS Certified Planner, American Institute of Certified Planners MEMBERSHIPS Founding Board Member (1982), Sensible Land Use Coalition Member (since 1980), American Planning Association Past Chair (2006- 2009), Minnesota Chapter, Urban Land Institute Past Chair, Sustainable Development Council, Urban Land Institute Environment Co- Chair, Regional Council of Mayors, Urban Land Institute College of Fellows, American Institute of Certified Planners Chair, Minnesota Land Trust AWARDS 2011 Sensible Land Use Coalition Mo Dorton Award for Distinguished Service to the Minnesota Land Use Community 2008 City of St. Cloud - International LivCom Awards: Gold Medal for being one of the "Most Livable Cities" with a population of 25,000- 75,000; and an award for "Best Efforts for Planning for the Future" 2007 Lino Lakes 1 -35E Corridor AUAR - Minnesota Environmental Initiative Award for Green Building and Development 2006 Twin Lakes Stakeholder Advisory Panel - Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association Award for Outstanding Project/ Program/ Tool 2006 Master Trainer Award - Government Training Services 2002 Burnsville Heart of the City - Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association Award for Outstanding Project /Program /Tool 1996 St. Cloud Comprehensive Plan - Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association Award for Distinguished Planning * denotes projects completed with other firms Design with community in mind John W. ShardIOW FAICP Principal -in- Charge PROJECT EXPERIENCE Planning Planning Consultant for 100+ Cities and Counties, Minnesota John has been extensively involved in a wide and diverse range of planning, zoning and development projects, including numerous award - winning projects. His career has been particularly distinguished by innovative and effective models for community participation in complicated and often controversial projects. Bottineau LRT Corridor Pre - Planning and Community Engagement Strategy, Twin Cities, Minnesota John led a multi - disciplinary team of consultants who worked with a committee of representatives from the five cities along the fourth LRT line planned to serve the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The process included the creation of a strong shared vision for the corridor and a community engagement plan with strategies and recommendations to engage the large and diverse minority and under - served populations along the corridor. Central Corridor Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Investment Framework, Twin Cities, Minnesota John co -led a multi - disciplinary team of consultants who completed a pioneering process to coordinate the investments of the federal, state, regional, county, local, institutional and private investments along the I I mile Central Corridor LRT line connecting St. Paul and Minneapolis. This innovative project included a comprehensive inventory of all of the investments needed to realize the ultimate visions for the future of the corridor and included the development of a Corridor Urban Land Institute As the Past Chair of the Minnesota Chapter of ULI, John provides leadership on a broad range of regional land use issues. He works closely with the ULI sponsored Regional Council of Mayors and serves as Co -chair of its Environment Committee. John is also the Chair of the ULI National Sustainable Development Council. Education, Outreach, and Innovation John has committed to improve land use practices, development and community building through education and outreach efforts. He was one of the founding board members of the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC). This group has sponsored informative programs on a broad range of land use topics every month for more than a quarter of a century. John was one of the first faculty members of the Government Training Services (GTS). In this role he developed several courses for citizen planners. For more than 34 years he has taught classes for elected and appointed officials that now number in the thousands. John is a frequent speaker at League of Minnesota Cities programs, Minnesota and national APA conferences and courses approved for continuing education for lawyers, realtors, appraisers, planners and others. He has served as an expert witness in numerous land use disputes representing both government and private property owners and developers. Dakota County Comprehensive Plan John facilitated a major multi - jurisdictional visioning effort to guide the County's comprehensive planning process. The process successfully incorporated sustainability and a conservation ethic into future decision making in the County. Implementation Tool that tracks public and private Government Training Service investments along the corridor. This project was one of the As a faculty member, John has led seminars in keys to the Twin Cities region winning a $5M HUD comprehensive planning, planned unit development, Sustainable Cities grant and is being replicated in other and advanced planning and zoning techniques for TOD corridors throughout the region. elected officials for the past 28 years. * denotes projects completed with other firms IN John W. ShardIOW FAICP Principal -in- Charge Regional Conservation Design Framework John was a co- author of this effort for the greater 13- county Twin Cities metropolitan area. He worked through the Minnesota Chapter of the Urban Land Institute to get in unanimously adopted by the Regional Council of Mayors. NW Quadrant Redevelopment Project, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota John served as principal in charge of this "smart growth opportunity site" as designated by the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. This project received the Builders Association of the Twin Cities Bennie Award for Best Infill redevelopment Neighborhood project. The study produced concepts that centered on redeveloping the shopping mall and balancing community desires with market realities and Smart Growth principles. The end product included a framework of key design standards and a set of criteria for developer selection. "The High Cost of Sprawl: Urban Land Supply Analysis and Recommendations for Managing Growth" John was the primary author of this document, which was prepared for the Builders Association of the Twin Cities. Continuing efforts on behalf of the Builders Association in regard to future growth options for the Twin Cities, and expansion of the MUSA. St. Cloud Area Joint Planning District Plan, St. Cloud, Minnesota John served as the principal in charge of the landmark St. Cloud regional plan that resulted in a joint plan for the five cities and three counties surrounding St. Cloud. The St. Cloud Area Joint Planning District Plan, completed in spring 2000, was designed to assist these communities in comprehensive planning and growth management efforts for 20 years or more. This project was the first of its kind in both scope and scale outside the Twin Cities metro area. * denotes projects completed with other firms LCCMR Statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan Working with the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment, John served as a member of the project's Core Management Team and chaired the Land Use Practices Team. This study is the most comprehensive inventory and analysis of Minnesota's natural resources that has ever been produced. Its recommendations present a vision and strategy for natural resource conservation and preservation efforts for the next 50 years. City of Richfield Housing Visioning Process, 2013 The City of Richfield retained John to design and lead a community process to identify and adopt a positive and constructive housing vision. The community had experienced a highly controversial and difficult denial of an affordable housing project and was mired in anger and distrust. The process successfully engaged a broad cross section of community representatives and culminated in the adoption of a positive and realistic housing vision. 2015 RATE SCHEDULE Classification Senior Principal Principal Specialist* Project Manager Senior Engineer I Scientist I Architect I Landscape Architect I Planner Architect I Landscape Architect Land Surveyor Engineer I Planner I Scientist I Geologist I Hygienist Designer I GIS I Landscape Designer I Graphics I Senior Technician Engineering Technician Project Technician Field Supervisor Crew Chief Inspector Survey Technician GPS Survey Equipment Total Station Equipment GIS Workstation Equipment GPS Sub meter Unit (per use) Flow Meter (per week) Air Detection Equipment (per half day) $ 38.00 $ 28.00 $ 22.00 $ 80.00 $ 200.00 $ 25.00 * Specialist: Experts in highly technical disciplines including Principal Planners, Market Analyst and Certified Industrial Hygienist These rates are adjusted annually in accordance with the normal review procedures of Stantec. IF) 2015 $ 169.00 - $ 241.00 $ 145.00 - $ 198.00 $ 145.00 - $ 241.00 $ 118.00 - $ 169.00 $ 125.00 - $ 145.00 $ 103.00 - $ 145.00 $ 96.00 - $ 125.00 $ 83.00 - $ 139.00 $ 90.00 - $ 132.00 $ 90.00 - $ 132.00 $ 83.00 - $ 96.00 $ 103.00 - $ 169.00 $ 96.00 - $ 139.00 $ 69.00 - $ 125.00 $ 55.00 - $ 83.00 $ 38.00 $ 28.00 $ 22.00 $ 80.00 $ 200.00 $ 25.00 * Specialist: Experts in highly technical disciplines including Principal Planners, Market Analyst and Certified Industrial Hygienist These rates are adjusted annually in accordance with the normal review procedures of Stantec. IF)