The URL can be used to link to this page

08-04-15 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY CENTER CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 4 AUGUST 2015 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE BEAN (Jul) ______ JOHNSON (Aug) ______ DAVIS (May) ______ GENG (Apr) ______ MADDY (Jun) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7 July 2015  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CU. YDS. Applicant: Bob Morlock Location: 24975 and 24995 Glen Road 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FORMAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONCEPT STAGE APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 6. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for July 7, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  June 2, 2015 Bean moved, Johnson seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – SIGNS IN THE R-C, RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT Applicant: Todd Frostad Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on July 27. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider an amendment to sign regulations. Director Nielsen explained Todd Frostad owns the South Lake Office Building located at 23505 County Road 19. The property is zoned R-C, Residential/Commercial. Mr. Frostad has requested an amendment to the sign regulations for properties located in R-C Districts so they are treated similarly to other commercial zoning districts (specifically the C-1, General Commercial District) that provide for signage in scale with the size of the property and the building located thereon. Mr. Frostad is not asking for the same amount of signage as is allowed in the C-1 District. He would like to have the same concept as allowed in the C-1 District. In the C-1 District properties are allowed to have signage totaling in area 10 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 2 of 11 percent of the building silhouette as viewed from the street. That can be divided among three signs one of which can be a pylon sign. Currently, the R-C District allows such properties to have two signs, one of which can be a freestanding sign, no larger than 20 square feet. The other sign must be a wall sign. Total signage must not exceed 36 square feet in total. These requirements apply to any property in the R-C District, regardless of the size of the property or the size of the structure on the property. Mr. Frostad’s building is the largest building in all of the R-C Districts. Yet, he is not allowed to have any more signage than the smallest buildings in the Districts. His building is located near a minor arterial roadway. The applicant has proposed a standard similar in concept to the one in the C-1 District for the R-C District – 5 percent of the building silhouette, with a maximum of 40 square feet for the freestanding sign (one half of what is allowed in the C-1 District). He also proposed the current height limitation for freestanding signs of five feet high be increased to eight feet. Lastly, the applicant proposed that the location requirement for an illuminated freestanding sign be reduced from 200 feet to 100 feet from a residential district boundary. If the distance is less than 100 feet, the sign would have to be screened from view of residential properties. There is very adequate screening along the west side of the applicant’s property. The provision that prohibits a sign from being lit between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. remains as is. Nielsen displayed a graphic of a sign that is 40 square feet provided by the applicant. That sign would not be visible from the residential units on the west. Nielsen noted that staff thinks the proposal has merit and recommends approval of the amendment. Todd Frostad, representing the South Lake Office Building, LLC, thanked the Planning Commission for considering his request. He noted that he worked with Director Nielsen to ensure what he has proposed is reasonable and appropriate because it would affect all of the R-C Districts in the City. He explained that the requirements for natural screening were preserved in the amendment to ensure the boundary was protected. The amendment does not ask for the same rights as the C-1 District. He then explained his current freestanding sign is located a long distance from the driveway entrance onto the property and he would like to move the sign closer to the entrance. That is why he proposed the reduction to 100 from the residential district boundary. Commissioner Bean asked Mr. Frostad why he needs bigger signs. Mr. Frostad explained 20 square feet is quite limited and it is difficult to legibly recognize the wording on the sign when traveling at speeds of 45 miles per hour (mph) and noted the posted speed is not 45 mph. The sign area is broken up between four tenants in his building. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M. Commissioner Bean asked if there are regulations about the construction and nature of signs. Director Nielsen noted the base or columns holding up a monument sign are not counted against the signage. In response to another question, Nielsen explained there are no construction material requirements. Bean asked if there are any illumination restrictions for signage. Nielsen stated what Mr. Frostad proposes will be backlit versus having flood lights light it. The extent of the lighting is limited to 0.4-foot candles at the property line. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 3 of 11 Bean stated that he has some concern that the sign would be more luminous to residents in the area because it can be 100 feet closer to the property line. Director Nielsen stated he does not think the 0.4- foot candles would be too onerous. Street lights are much brighter than 0.4-foot candles. Commissioner Maddy stated the graphic of the proposed signage rendering included in the meeting packet indicates there would be a removable temporary promotions panel at the bottom of the sign. Director Nielsen clarified if that panel will be used it has to be include in the forty square feet maximum. Nielsen explained the City encourages that feature to reduce the number of requests for temporary signage. Commissioner Davis commented that moving the signage closer to the driveway will help a lot. She questioned if the sign will be visible from both sides. Mr. Frostad responded yes. She asked if the only other businesses that could be impacted are the ones noted on the R-C, Residential/Commercial map. Director Nielsen responded yes. In response to a question, Director Nielsen explained that the Monson Building is the former Kuemple Chimes building. Custom grandfather clocks were built there. It was there before most of the single- family residential housing was built around it. That R-C district location has the most residential housing around it. There was concern raised about a lighted sign being a problem on that site if there were to be one there. Nielsen explained it would be difficult for a lighted sign to meet the screening requirement there. Someone found a view of the site on an app. It appeared that the sign is about the size of a real estate sign and that it is not lighted. There was a brief discussion about the other R-C Districts and there was no concern about the proposed ordinance amendment allowing a problematic sign. In response to a question, Director Nielsen explained the Gideon Woods and Manitou Woods Twinhomes do not have enough units to have a sign. Commissioner Davis commented that the Health Sense Campus has a history of wanting more signage. Chair Geng noted that he thought the proposed amendment makes a great deal of sense. He thought the request and solution are reasonable. It protects residential properties from exposure to light. Commissioner Bean noted that originally he was opposed to more signage and more lights. He has changed his position and now thinks the proposed amendment makes common sense because the sign could be closer to the driveway on the Frostad site. Commissioner Maddy noted that logic prevails on this request; it makes sense to him. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of a zoning text amendment regarding signs in the R-C, Residential/Commercial Zoning District. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 4 of 11 Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a Zoning Code text amendment related to a side yard setback for mechanical equipment on lakeshore properties in the Shoreland Overlay Zoning District. Director Nielsen noted the Planning Department has initiated this. Director Nielsen explained that residents in general prefer to put their air conditioning condensing units on the side of their house. Many times the house is built right up to the side yard setback and there is not room for that. That is not an allowable encroachment at this time. More recently, one of the things the applicant has had to provide for a building permit is where the location of the HVAC equipment will be. There is one circumstance when that is not fair. Lakeshore lots in Shoreland Districts are required to have greater side yard setbacks than non-lakeshore lots. The Code requires that those lots must have a total side yard setback of 30 feet, with no one side less than 10 feet. The 10-foot requirement is not a problem; that is what non-lakeshore lots are required to have. The problem arises when the property is set up with side yards constituting some other combination of 30 feet (e.g., 15 and 15). Since the equipment must comply with side setbacks, that property must keep its equipment 15 feet from the property line. The proposed housekeeping text amendment would allow mechanical equipment on lakeshore lots to be an “allowable encroachment” in required side yards, except for those abutting a street, and no closer than 10 feet from the side lot line. The amendment would also prohibit mechanical equipment from being located within drainage and utility easements. Following is how a proposed amendment would read: Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. (4) would be amended to read: (4) Laundry drying and recreational equipment, arbors, trellises, air conditioning or heating equipment in rear yards to a point no closer than five feet from any lot line. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. would be amended to include: (10) Air conditioning and heating equipment shall not be located within drainage and utility easements. Air conditioning and heating equipment on residential lakeshore lots may encroach into required side yards, but no closer than 10 feet from the side lot line, nor within a drainage and utility easement.” Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of the amendment. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. Commissioner Bean asked about backup generators and small pumps for irrigations systems. He questioned if the language should be more generic and not specific to air conditioning and heating. Director Nielsen stated the same logic would apply – generators are allowed 10 feet from the lot line on non-lakeshore lots so why shouldn’t that same thing apply for lakeshore lots. Commissioner Johnson stated if generators were added he questioned if that would open the door for people to locate a generator a considerable distance from the house. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 5 of 11 Commissioner Bean stated that maybe the language could be modified to stipulate that any mechanical equipment in the encroachment would have to be connected into the mechanics in the house. Council Liaison Woodruff noted there is separate language in the Code that regulates the amount of noise that can be generated across the property line independent of the source of the noise. Director Nielsen explained that during the Planning Commission’s next meeting there will be discussion about ordinance amendments related to alternative energy. He thought maybe the generator concern could be discussed with those. Council Liaison Woodruff stated Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) states “…equipment on residential lakeshore lots …”. He questioned if the Zoning Districts should be specified instead. Director Nielsen stated the reference could be to Shoreland District riparian lots. Woodruff stated if there is a definition for residential lakeshore lots in the Zoning Code then he is okay with the proposed wording. Woodruff then stated the language “… nor within a drainage and utility easement …” is redundant because it is stated in the first sentence of paragraph 10. Nielsen stated he will talk to the City Attorney about that. Commissioner Johnson stated that when he worked for a home builder in the northeast part of the country backup generators were located as far away from the house as possible for noise reasons for luxury homes ($6 million in price). The distance from the house was as far as 50 – 100 feet from the home. Johnson then stated it makes sense to discuss generators with other energy sources as Director Nielsen suggested. Council Liaison Woodruff stated air conditioning condensers are permanent noise sources. Generators are infrequently used and are therefore temporary sources of noise. Commissioner Johnson stated if someone decides to build a home that solely uses alternative energy a generator would be the alternative backup. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he thought if a person relied on alternative energy for their home it is unlikely they would have a generator for backup because generators are very inefficient and costly to run. Commissioner Maddy asked if everyone agrees residential lakeshore lot is a legitimate definition. Director Nielsen stated he will check on that and noted that the requirements for Shoreland District riparian lots are different than for other Shoreland lots. Nielsen then stated he will check with the City Attorney as to whether or not the language “… nor within a drainage and utility easement …” in Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) is redundant. Chair Geng stated he wondered if this item should be continued if the Commission is going to discuss proposed amendments to alternative energy during its next meeting. He questioned recommending an amendment to Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) now and then recommending another amendment to it next month. Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of a zoning text amendment regarding side yard setback for mechanical equipment on lakeshore lots in the Shoreland Overlay Zoning District subject to verifying there is a definition for residential lakeshore lot in the Zoning Code and to checking with the City Attorney to find out if the language “… nor within a drainage and utility …” in Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) is redundant. Motion passed 5/0. easement Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 6 of 11 W O R K S E S S I O N 3. DISCUSSION – SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT AND BADGER PARK MASTER PLAN RELATIVE TO THE MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY REDEVELOPMENT Director Nielsen explained that the Planning Commissioners were the core of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC was formed to study various impacts of the proposed redevelopment of the MCC property. Part of the study related to the area surrounding the property. He thought it prudent to revisit the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (SCRS) completed in 2012 and adopted into the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan and the Concept Plan for Badger Park. He questioned why the SCRS was not shown to the PAC. He thought the PAC’s findings and recommendations were very consistent with the SCRS Report. If the property is redeveloped according to the PAC’s recommendation he does not think it would require an additional amendment to the Comp Plan. He highlighted elements in the SCRS Report. They are as follows. The SCRS Area included the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Road and County Road 19  intersection (the westerly boundary of that area has not been defined yet), the commercial area on the south side of County Road 19 at the intersection, and the property immediately south of the Shorewood Public Works property. The main focus of the SCRS was the northwest quadrant. He identified the various properties in the northwest quadrant and how they were currently being  used. The American Legion is the main landowner in that area. The SCRS Report indicates there is a desire to have a unified/coordinated development of the  northwest quadrant. The commercial environment currently in existence does not reflect the quality of Shorewood. The Report lists a number of issues identified by the Planning Commission. Vehicular and  pedestrian internal circulation was one of them. The PAC’s Findings and Recommendations Report (FRR) indicated some cleanup of direct access points could be done in the northwest quadrant. The Planning Commission specifically chose not to specify specific types of new structures. The  SCRS Report was more conceptual. The SCRS Report strongly recommends there be senior housing of some type. The Commission  also wanted to have some type of commercial in that area. It is likely housing will take up more of the quadrant than commercial. The hope is the two uses would have some common parking area. There was a strong recommendation to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle circulation within  the Area. And, for there to be common areas for people to enjoy. There was a heavy emphasis on landscaping – both the site and the streetscapes.  The SCRS Report recommends residential type architecture. It includes a few photographs of  multi-use buildings the Commission liked. He noted the City has had at least three developers express interest in that area. One developer talked about doing a co-op project. He commented that the Mayor had thought that the SCRS Area could be a gateway to the community. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 7 of 11 He explained the PAC was asked to discuss what would/should happen with Badger Park. For example, should some of the facilities there be relocated to the MCC property? The consensus of the PAC was that the Park should be kept intact. There was some discussion about building senior housing on the site of the Park. Unfortunately, the soils under the Park are very bad. Concept 1.5 for the Park would increase parking for the Park and the Southshore Center. Assuming Mattamy Homes, the developer for the MCC property, moves forward the Park Concept 1.5 is ready to go. Earlier in the day during a Council work session there was some discussion about moving the sports field in Badger Park to Freeman Park. The Park Commission has indicated some type of play area/open space should remain in Badger Park. He noted the Park Commission recommended Concept 1.5 and Council had approved it until the MCC redevelopment project came along. Nielsen stated from his vantage point the PAC study confirms the SCRS and Badger Park Concept 1.5. Commissioner Johnson asked if Mattamy has a copy of the SCRS Report. Director Nielsen responded he was unsure. Commissioner Davis stated she thought the SCRS Report should have been shared with all of the PAC members. Director Nielsen stated he was frustrated that it was not. Director Nielsen stated he thought the proposal for the redevelopment of the MCC property will, and to some extent has, stirred interest in the Smithtown Crossing area. He commented that the market for senior housing is very strong. Nielsen went on to state that during its work session earlier in the day Council did a nice job with Mattamy’s pre-application; it did what it was supposed to do. He explained Council went through the PAC’s recommendations one by one. They prioritized some items and added new ones. In response to a question from Commissioner Johnson, Director Nielsen explained that when the Planning Commission started the SCRS they agreed that the SCRS Area is to some extent the entry into the City when coming from the north. The hope is the SCRS Area would end up a mini city center with its own identity; similar to the area referred to as Navarre. It would also compliment the City Campus. Nielsen reiterated the Commission thought that there should be some commercial component in the Area even if it is a small neighborhood component. Council Liaison Woodruff stated from his personal perspective if a person lived along Manor Road it is likely they would not consider the need for a mini city center high on their priority list. Because he lives out on Enchanted Island it is not high on his priority list. But, having an area that is identified as bait is not the impression the City should want to leave with anyone. He does think that whatever is done to the Area should be attractive and of benefit to the Area. He then stated for the last 7 – 10 years the market demand has not incented developers to want to do anything there. It would have been a mistake for the City to acquire a number of properties in the Area. He went on to state one of the major reasons the City has not started to make significant improvements to Badger Park is the City has not had the money. Concept 1.5 improvements will cost more than $1 million. There is only about one half of that in the Park Improvements Fund. Commissioner Bean asked if there has ever been discussion about relocating City Hall to the property just south of the Public works site. Director Nielsen responded the SCRS indicated that property would likely end up being something other than single-family; the City would be open to changing the zoning. Nielsen noted a renovation of City Hall was completed in 2009 for a cost of more than $1 million. He explained that when the Public Safety facility in Shorewood was built there was a brief discussion about CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 8 of 11 incorporating City Hall into that. That idea was scraped quickly because there were other South Lake cities involved with the construction of the facility. Council Liaison Woodruff stated during his tenure on Council there has never been discussion about relocating City Hall north of County Road 19; there had been discussion about moving it south slightly. But, if there was a compelling reason to free up the current site he was sure Council would discuss it. He then stated the bonded debt for the City Hall renovation will not be paid off for 10 or more years. Bean stated the size of the field in Badger Park (300 feet by 160 feet) is not a full-sized football field. Nielsen stated it is a little bit short. Bean clarified it was 60 feet short. He asked if there is any intent to play soccer there. Nielsen stated when necessary soccer leagues give up time to football and lacrosse leagues at Badger Park. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the original Badger Park improvements plan did a better job of connecting the Southshore Center to Badger Park and City Hall than Concept 1.5 does. But, the Park Commission preferred Concept 1.5 and he could not get the Commissioners to change their mind. Commissioner Davis asked when park dedication fees are paid. Director Nielsen responded with the final plat. Nielsen stated that will be another issue because the City Code requires a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot or at the City’s discretion 8 percent of the raw value of the land. The 8 percent would end up being much more than the fee and he is not sure why the City would not go with the raw value of the land route. He is not sure if the City would give some credit for the 60 percent open space on the redeveloped MCC property. He does not recommend doing that because if that open space were not there Mattamy would have increased the yard on the lots. Mattamy may get some credit for trails. Commissioner Maddy asked if representatives from Tonka Bay were involved in the SCRS. Director Nielsen stated they were made aware of it but they were not invited to participate. Maddy stated if the City does try and promote a gateway area half of the gateway would be missing because it is located in Tonka Bay. He questioned if Shorewood could merge with Tonka Bay. Nielsen stated it would be a gateway to the west. Commissioner Bean stated Shorewood could annex with Excelsior and then it would have a downtown. Someone stated that would solve all sorts of issues. Bean suggesting putting the area back to the way it was. Maddy stated it would simplify things. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Chair Geng noted that he attended Council’s work session earlier in the day about the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment project. He explained Mattamy Homes submitted its application for a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment and its concept plan for the MCC redevelopment project on July 6. The 60-day time period for the City to act on it started July 6. There was discussion during the work session about extending the 60 days by another 60 days. Because of the size of the project there may be a need for the Planning Commission to meet more than once a month. The Commission discussed the possible need to do that earlier in the year. Commissioner Johnson noted that since he started on the Commission the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) met twice a month regarding primarily the redevelopment of the MCC property. For the Commission to meet more frequently would not be much of a change. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 9 of 11 Council Liaison Woodruff asked Director Nielsen if he shared the MCC redevelopment review process timeline with the Planning Commission. Nielsen responded he had not. Woodruff explained that unless the City finds deficiencies in the application it has 60 days to act on it. The City can extend the time period an additional 60 days for some cause. To do that it must notify the applicant in writing before the initial 60 days is up. During that time period the Planning Commission has to hold a public hearing on the concept plan and make a recommendation to Council and Council has to either approve or deny the application. Following that is the Development Stage and that same process will be followed for the development plan. The last stage in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is the Final Plan Stage when a final plat is considered by Council. If the City does not take action during any Stage the State Statute required timeframe the application for that Stage is automatically approved. He stated there will be a need for more than one Commission meeting a month. Director Nielsen noted there will be a public hearing on August 4 for the Comp Plan amendment and concept plan. If for some reason the Commission chose to continue the public hearing it would be continued to August 18. Nielsen displayed the MCC redevelopment review process timeline on the screen. It showed the shortest and longest time periods for approving the three PUD Stages. There are unknowns about how long it will take the developer to submit its plans for the next Stage once they receive approval for the previous Stage’s plan. He noted that he does not recommend extending the PUD Stages review and approval time period by an additional 60 days up front. He thought it would be better to announce during/after the Planning Commission’s first public hearing on the project that the meeting schedule is such that the review and consideration process has to be extended out. Commissioner Bean asked if Council had any discussion about holding neighborhood meetings. Director Nielsen stated Council has decided to bring John Shardlow, with Stantec Consultant Services, Inc., back to at a minimum be at an informational meeting. He clarified it is not a meeting to take public comment. The City can receive written public comment. It would be a meeting to inform the public about what has been done to date including the findings and recommendations from the PAC. He noted there has not been a decision about when in the review process it should held. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that during a meeting about the Summit Woods development project many residents asked questions that could not be answered because the concept plan does not provide that detailed information. That detail information was provided as part of the development plan. During Council’s work session earlier in the day he suggested the public meeting be held sometime during the Development Stage when there is enough information to answer the questions. There was discussion between Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Woodruff about what each thought they heard during the work session. Council Liaison Woodruff noted he did not think it would be prudent for Council to also hold a public hearing on the concept plan and the development plan. He thought it would undermine the importance of the Planning Commission’s public hearing. Chair Geng stated the issues and concerns raised during the Commission’s public hearing would just be repeated during a Council public hearing. Commissioner Bean stated residents want an opportunity to vent. He then stated there are things that the City ordinances allow even though residents may not like them. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 10 of 11 Chair Geng stated he thought it would be better to have an open house before the Commission holds its public hearing on the concept plan. He then stated that during the public hearing there would be an opportunity to explain why maintaining a golf course there was never an option. Commissioner Bean asked if there is a scenario where Mattamy could develop the MCC property without having to have public hearings. Director Nielsen responded no. But, there could be a scenario where Mattamy would not have to ask for an amendment to the Comp Plan. Bean asked how many lots there could be under the current zoning for the property. Nielsen stated 40,000 square-foot lots could be platted across the entire site (about 100 lots). Council Liaison Woodruff stated some of the site is unbuildable so there could be 80 – 90 lots. Bean stated the price point on those developed lots (mansions) would be significantly more. Council Liaison Woodruff stated for the Summit Woods development the developer could have built something that complied with the Zoning Code. It would not have been something the City wanted. A number of residents in that area wanted there to be no redevelopment of the area. Commissioner Bean suggested residents be told about a scenario where Mattamy could redevelop the property without asking for zoning changes. And, that the PUD process gives the City an ability to get some things that are beneficial to the City. Director Nielsen stated the PUD process and the Comp Plan both in some way give equal weight to density as well as specific lot sizes. He then stated clustering the homes is better for the City. It allows for better drainage off of the site, for example. He went on to state there is no way the City could operate the MCC golf course or a smaller version of it. Council Liaison Woodruff stated during the work session someone pointed out that the City was not given an opportunity to bid on the MCC property. The owners of the property selected a group of developers to bid on the property and they selected Mattamy. The sale price was $15 million. To bond for that would have required a 30 percent increase in the tax levy. Chair Geng stated it is his understanding that Mattamy was not the high bidder. Commissioner Johnson concurred. Commissioner Davis stated she thought the public meeting needs to be held first and the comments about what the developer has the right to do must be told to the public. Director Nielsen stated one of the things that impresses him about the concept plan is there will still be views of open space. There will not be many views of houses from around the outside of the property. Chair Geng stated he does not think there is a way to schedule an open house before the August 4 public hearing. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that he thought Council decided to have an informational meeting instead of Council also holding a public hearing. He commented that maybe it would be appropriate to have two informational meetings. Multiple neighborhood meetings worked well for trails. Commissioner Bean suggested putting up a redevelopment sign on the corner and it could note when there is a neighborhood/informational meeting. Chair Geng stated he thought that would make the second public hearing for the development plan go much better. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 11 of 11 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a public hearing for the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment project slated for the August 4, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. There is also a conditional use permit for fill and grading slated for that meeting which will be considered before the MCC public hearing. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on Council’s June 22, 2015, meetings (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC Commissioner Davis stated she attended the last Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session. It was about groundwater and she thought it was a very good session. She recommended people go to the SLUC website and watch the presentation. Commissioner Maddy stated he also thought it was very good. • Other Commissioner Davis talked about an effort undertaken where a potpourri of seed types was planted in the boulevard area. She noted the area looks beautiful. She stated the mix of seed types can be customized. 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddy seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 7, 2015, at 9:14 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us DATE: July 30, 2015 TO: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director FROM: Paul Hornby, City Engineer RE: Morlock Property C.U.P. — 24975 and 24995 Glen Road Grading Plan Review I have completed my review of the proposed grading plan submitted by Bob Morlock, for Lots 7 and 8 Manitou Glen. Plans were prepared by Otto Associates, dated July 7, 2015, and I have the following comments: ■ The grading plan describes the import of approximately 1,770 cubic yards of fill for the two lots. Approximately 1,160 cubic yards of material is proposed for Lot 7 (the westerly lot). The City has received drainage complaints west of Lot 7, after demolition of an existing house. The existing drainage directs runoff behind and in front of the house immediately west of Lot 7. Part of the issue may have been resolved after the basement /foundation was filled (it was holding water for a period of time), and there is an existing grading pattern that directs water to the easterly basement window of the house immediately west of Lot 7. ■ The grading plan needs a slight modified to Lot 7 to direct water toward Glen Road as part of the site filling for the C.U.P. When a building permit is submitted for Lot 7, we will review the proposed grading plan again, since the drainage may be modified to accommodate the type of structure proposed on the lot. At this time, I do not see a need to retain storm water on the site since standing water on the site may have contributed to adjacent property water issues. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this Grading Plan Review. SID- 896. � _ I i _ I I G— 1 (�bo b M \ t I a Agti / - �X1 X \ S- �, ol -- . -. -. -. -.-.. op ,W -6 o f ui 1 V 10 is j5 Is —C is iS X X Patti Helgesen From: Scott Johnson [scottj5896 @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 1:09 PM To: Planning Subject: CUP for Bob Morlock In regards to the CUP request for the properties at 24975 and 24995 Glen Road by Bob Morlock. We live at 24955 Glen Road, right next to the properties and have no issues at all with this request. It would be nice if Bob could move forward and develop these properties. Thank You. Scott Johnson and Patricia Stalberger. Memorandum Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan 29 July 2015 2015 (see Attachment I). The recommendations of the PAC will be referenced in various aspects of this report. The developer has now submitted applications for a formal Comprehensive Plan amendment and a Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). As part of his applications, the developer has provided the following exhibits: D-3 Site Conditions – Soils, Wetlands and Drainage D-4 Site Conditions – Tree Massings D-5 Aerial View D-6 Proposed Concept Plan D-7 Overall Site Plan E Examples – Building Setbacks F Applicant’s Traffic Consultant Report The Minnetonka Country Club golf course, including clubhouse and maintenance facilities, driving range and tennis facilities, currently occupy the site (see Exhibt C). As can be seen on Exhibit D- 3, the topography of the property is rolling, with elevations as high as 999 near the existing clubhouse, dropping to as low as 956 in the southerly low flat areas. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: North: single-family homes, zoned R-1A and R-1C (across Smithtown Road); plus commercial development, zoned C-1, General Commercial (Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area) East: commercial development, zoned C-1; public (City Hall/Badger Park) and single-family homes, zoned R-1C and R-1A South: single-family homes, zoned R-1C and R-1A West: single-family homes, zoned R-1A As mentioned in the applicant’s narrative, 100 of the proposed homes would be built on lots with minimum sizes of 90’ x 180’ and a minimum area of 16,200 square feet. The remaining 40 homes would be on smaller lots – 55’ x 135’ with a minimum of 7500 square feet of area. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS As mentioned earlier in this report, a considerable amount of work was done, and recommendations were made by the Planning Advisory Committee. The Committee’s findings and conclusions, along with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code provide the basis for evaluating the Mattamy proposal and will be referenced throughout this report. -2- Memorandum Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan 29 July 2015 A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 1. Proposed Land Use/Density. The applicant’s proposal necessitates a change in the Proposed Land Use Plan in Shorewood’s Comprehensive Plan from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density “Residential (1-2 units per acre)”. Shorewood’s Zoning Code prescribes that density be expressed in “units per 40,000 square feet”. The calculation is based on net density. That is, the net area of the property, exclusive of city-designated wetlands, and public right-of-way, divided by 40,000, divided by 140 units. Following is the calculation: Net area: 118.64 ac. – 13.6* ac. = 105.4*ac. Square feet: 105.4 x 43,560 sq. ft. = 4,575,542 sq. ft. “Shorewood acre” 4,575,542 ÷ 40.000 = 114.39 (Shwd. ac.) Net density: 140 units ÷ 114.39 = 1.22 units/40,000 sq. ft. *Does not include city-designated wetlands There is a relatively small area of city-designated wetlands (as opposed to Wetland Conservation Act wetlands) in the northwest corner of the site. Since the area of city-designated wetlands has not been deducted from the gross area, the resulting net density will be somewhat higher than 1.22 u/40,000. Nevertheless, this density is very close to the bottom of the 1-2 units/40,000 square-foot range. It is worth noting that the applicant’s pre-application plans proposed 121 units, all single-family residential, primarily one line of home product. Based on input from the PAC, the developer replaced 21 of the lots with 40 smaller “age-targeted” units in the northwest and northeast corners of the site. These are intended for empty nesters and seniors who wish to scale down their housing in smaller, maintenance-free homes. The proposed units are single-level, plus a basement, built on 7500 square-foot lots. In addition, the applicant is exploring the possibility of bringing in a separate builder for the cul-de-sac units in the middle of the site. While the project remains entirely single-family residential, it addresses three different demographic markets. Part of the work of the PAC included an examination of the areas surrounding the subject property, particularly the area to the north and east of the site. The group -3- Memorandum Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan 29 July 2015 considered whether these areas, including Badger Park, might be appropriate for some sort of more diverse uses, such as commercial, or higher density residential. With respect to Badger Park, the group concluded that the park should remain intact and that existing recreational facilities should not be relocated to the MCC site. This does not preclude, however, some sort of senior housing in the southeast quadrant of the Smithtown Road/County Road 19 intersection. Such a use could relate well and make use of the park and the Shorewood Community Center. Similarly, the northwest quadrant could accommodate a senior housing development. It is interesting that the PAC came to the same basic conclusions as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, which has already been adopted by reference into the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Some of the more detailed recommendations of the PAC which proposed entry treatment for the area and streetscaping are consistent with the County Road 19 Corridor Study, which has also been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Traffic. One of the key issues identified early on in the pre-application process is traffic. While the PAC concluded that the difference in traffic generated by the proposed project and an active, viable country club was relatively minimal, it acknowledged that area traffic is an existing, ongoing issue, particularly along the Country Club/Yellowstone/Lake Linden collector route. The City Council has agreed that this is an existing issue irrespective of the proposed development. In response, the Council has directed staff to establish a separate resident committee to do a detailed study of alternatives for Country Club/Yellowstone/Lake Linden. This study would run in parallel with the Country Club redevelopment process. Findings of the study may also be used in a more comprehensive city-wide traffic policy. 3. Metropolitan Council Review. Just as Shorewood’s Comprehensive Plan was subject to review by the Metropolitan Council and surrounding communities, the amendment is also subject to review. Upon completion of the public hearing at the Planning Commission level, staff will forward the proposed amendment to the Met Council for determination as to the “metropolitan significance”, if any, of the project. More on that process will be presented at the public hearing. B.Planned Unit Development. -4- Memorandum Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan 29 July 2015 1. Rezoning. The current Comprehensive Plan and the conclusions of the PAC support the use of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) as the appropriate zoning tool for the redevelopment of this significant part of future Shorewood. Rather than a traditional zoning approach, the establishment of a P.U.D. district on the MCC property provides for greater flexibility and control of the redevelopment. The Planning Commission and City Council are urged to review Section 1201.25 Subd. 1. of the Zoning Code for a detailed explanation of the purpose of P.U.D. With respect to flexibility, this provides for the main premise of the proposal, which is to cluster home sites on the better, more buildable ground while preserving natural features of the site, such as wetlands, trees and areas with less suitable soils. The development agreement that results from the P.U.D. establishes the standards for the site and actually becomes the zoning code for the subject property. By using P.U.D. the city can accommodate the varying housing options proposed by the applicant. The logistics and mechanics for managing common and private open space are contained in the P.U.D. provisions. In addition, unlike conventional zoning, if a project fails or defaults, zoning of the site reverts back to the current R-1A zoning. With traditional zoning, once the property is rezoned, it is very difficult to change it back. 2. Concept Plan. The P.U.D. process includes three distinct steps and applications: 1) concept stage; 2) development stage; and 3) final plan stage. The applicant has requested approval of his concept plan as shown in Exhibits D-6 and D-7. The basic elements of community development set forth in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and in the work of the PAC - natural resources, land use, transportation, community facilities and housing - should be considered in evaluating the concept plan. a. Natural Resources. An important aspect of the proposed concept plan is setting aside the low areas with soils less desirable for building sites as open space. Preservation of those areas also provides for better protection of trees on the site. What needs to be decided is whether the open space is to be privately owned and maintained, or whether it should be public. While all developments are required under Shorewood’s development regulations to protect wetlands, there is actually some potential on this site -5- Memorandum Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan 29 July 2015 for the restoration of a very old wetland area that existed before the property was ever used as a golf course. The PAC recommended that a larger, well designed wetland is preferable, if feasible, to having several small “pocket” wetlands. This raises a question as to who designs the wetland, builds it, and maintains it. This issue will be addressed within the development stage of the P.U.D. process. b. Land Use. The answer to the basic land use question is quite simple – the project is entirely single-family residential which is quite consistent with the surrounding areas. Somewhat more complicated is how to craft development standards for the proposed lots that provide for relatively large homes on smaller lots than typically found in Shorewood. This question was posed to the applicant in the PAC review, specifically, how would the homes fit, and what about future accessory uses such as decks, patios and swimming pools? The response came in the form of illustrative sketches for the various models of homes they intend to build (see Exhibit E for examples). Staff is convinced that the homes and accessory uses will fit, particularly since the lots have been deepened somewhat since the first proposal. This also eliminated the question of what to do with some of the “orphaned open spaces” on the original plan. Shorewood imposes hardcover (impervious surface) restrictions for all property in the city. Properties in the Shoreland District are limited to 25 percent, while all others are limited to 33 percent. Given the size of the proposed homes and anticipated accessory uses, and the smaller lot sizes, a different standard may be needed for the project. With the amount of open space proposed for the site, this should not be a problem. c. Transportation/Traffic. While overall area traffic will be addressed under a separate study, there are two issues within the project that deserve attention: 1) streets; and 2) trails. The most significant issue relative to streets is the need for an additional access to Smithtown Road. A second access would resolve the excessive cul-de-sac length on the west side of the site plan. It is also consistent with trying to encourage project traffic to use Smithtown/County Road 19 rather than Country Club/Yellowstone/Lake Linden. The apparent solution is an extension of the cul-de-sac street in the northwest corner of the site. Although it necessitates some wetland alteration, there is ample room within the project to mitigate the wetland loss. -6- Memorandum Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan 29 July 2015 At the informal open house held on 28 July, some residents expressed concern about the southerly entrance to the project coming out on Yellowstone Trail. An un-named Planning Commissioner suggested that having one of the cul-de-sacs on the east side of the project punched through to Country Club Road may encourage some more of the project traffic toward the County Road 19 intersection. This is worth exploring with city engineers, but it is suggested it be reviewed as part of the upcoming Country Club/Yellowstone/Lake Linden study. It has been noted that inadequate street right-of-way exists along certain sections of existing streets, i.e. Smithtown Road and Country Club Road. As the project moves to development stage review, the preliminary plat should address these deficiencies. Per recommendations by the PAC, the applicant shows a trail along the east side of the project, just outside the west side of the Country Club Road R.O.W. (see Exhibit D-7). This is consistent with the Shorewood Trail Plan and the preference of the PAC. The applicant also shows a perimeter/internal trail system. Although the ownership and maintenance of the internal trail system have yet to be determined, the preference of the PAC and staff are for this to be public. d. Community Facilities. This element covers parks and public utilities. (1) Parks. The PAC did not recommend moving any of the Badger Park facilities to the proposed project area. As such, the issue simply becomes what amount of park dedication will be required. The Shorewood Subdivision Code prescribes park dedication fees of $6500 per lot. As an alternative, the City can require up to eight percent of the land in the project or cash in the amount of eight percent of the raw value of the land. While this is the City’s determination to make, the City Attorney advises that the statutes provide for some credit to be given for things such as open space or trails. This will be negotiated with the developer as the project progresses. (2) City Water. The project will be served by the municipal water system. At present, Shorewood imposes a $10,000 connection fee per lot, from which the developer may deduct his cost of water main construction, service stubs, etc. -7- Memorandum Re: MCC Redevelopment – Comp Plan Amendment and Concept Stage Plan 29 July 2015 (3) Sanitary and Storm Sewer. These items will be addressed under separate cover by the City Engineer. That said, it is important to remember that storm water management was the second most significant issue raised in the pre-application review. RECOMMENDATION In general, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and Concept Stage plan appear to be consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Committee. As you are aware, we held an informal open house meeting last Tuesday, inviting over 700 area residents to come and familiarize themselves with the project and the process to date. The meeting was well attended and many of the attendees filled out comment sheets, which we have boiled down in Attachment II. There will undoubtedly be considerable interest in the redevelopment project at the public hearing scheduled for next Tuesday. As such, the Commission may wish to not make a decision the night of the hearing. Staff mentioned in the pre-application review meeting that additional meetings may be required to comply with 60-day rule requirements. If the Commission wishes to continue the discussion it should be scheduled for review at a meeting on Tuesday, 18 August. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Bruce DeJong Paul Hornby Larry Brown Rick Packer -8- Lake Minnetonka Upper Lake • �..�M rshr + Ct C) >� •tea • 9� Yy y Q Rd �z ^ Beverly.Dr CD W 62 P� C 0 500 1,000 2,000 FM — Feet Shorewood Planning Department 11/2014 CI3'Y OF SHOREWOOD o • + + + Valie y_W..opd,La ` Nelsine,Dr sac 3 Sunn ale • • o. �a q La m � 1n 1A t Freeman Park Gideon Bay ;k Frog ad Island U Rla' a Pdint 3 j J Cir Minnetonka Country Club i 0��a� • c er _ o NV UI o� y 5 a Rampart A �o ` food Dr it d. Park Lane Pond View Dr (Lake Minnewashta) �a a9r C Minne CITY 07- July 6, 2015 FILE C Mattamy Homes i nneapolis- St.Paul Division 7201 Washington Avenue South, Suite 201, Edina, MIS! 55439 T (952) 898 -2100 www.mattamyhomes.com Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept PUD Plan (General) Narrative Minnetonka Country Club Shorewood, MN Request Mattamy Minneapolis, LLC (Applicant) has entered into a Purchase Agreement with Minnetonka Country Club Association, Inc. (Owner) for the purchase of the Minnetonka Country Club in Shorewood, Minnesota. The proposed purchase contemplates development of the site for single family residential purposes in accordance with the recently accepted Planning Advisory Committee recommendations. Mattamy is requesting a change in the Comprehensive Plan from Semi - Public to Low Density Residential and approval of the Concept PUD General Plan. u; Reason For Request It is Mattamy's desire to develop the former golf course for residential uses utilizing a cluster design leaving approximately 43% of the site in public open space. The public open space will developed with passive open areas and trails. The trails will connect to the proposed sidewalk on Smithtown Road, and will create a trail corridor along the west,side of the trees that line Country Club Road. On a previous rendition of this plan, there were considerable private open space areas surrounding the neighborhood, creating distance between the new homes and the existing neighborhood. Because of the difficulty in maintaining all these "orphan" areas, they have been incorporated into the proposed lots. Nothing has been brought any closer to the existing neighborhood; the previously proposed open space has simply been incorporated into the proposed lots Proposed Concept Plan Concept Objective The main objective of the plan is to preserve significant open space areas, dedicated to the public for its use as passive open space while clustering 140 proposed home sites on the higher areas of the site. The home sites will consist of 100 traditional homes on 16,200 square foot lots (90'X180') and 40 "age targeted" home sites on 7,150 square foot lots (55'X130'). The age targeted homes are proposed to be maintenance free, single level homes with basements, clustered in the Northeast and Northwest corners of the site. Incorporated into the open space will be trails, water treatment /quality basins, wetland restoration and habitat for a variety of Exhibit B MATTAMY PROJECT NARRATIVE CHARLOTTE • JACKSONVILLE . MINNEAPOLIS • ORLANDO - PHOENIX • SARASOTA <.Y Mattamy Homes Minneapolis -St. Paul Division wildlife species. Ultimately, a PUD process will likely be undertaken for final development approvals. Target Market The Lake Minnetonka area market is a highly elastic market, assisted by being served by the top high school in the state. The west side of the metro is home to several Fortune 500 companies. The landscape elements of the sub - region are very attractive. Mattamy is projecting 3 "target" markets. At present, Mattamy is expecting to build on 86 of the traditional single family lots. The "product line" for these will be as seen in our North Oaks project (Charley Lake Preserve) and our Victoria project (Ambergate). These homes will generally range from $650,000 - $900,000. Additionally, Mattamy is proposing to construct 40 "age targeted" homes. These are single level, maintenance free lifestyle homes with a target market consisted of empty nesters that may winter places other than Minnesota. These homes all have full basements. We are exploring partnering with a custom home builder on the 14 lots on the center cul -de -sac. ,"he builder would address that part of the market that prefers a completely custom home. These homes will likely be $1,000,000 +. ^� Utilizing these 3 target markets will cover a broader range of buyers, increase the rate of absorption and provide for housing diversity within the neighborhood. Environmental Considerations s It is Mattamy's desire, as shown by the Concept Plan, to save as many trees and existing natural areas as possible around the periphery of the site. No wetland impacts or tree removal are currently proposed in the central open space. During the PAC process, there was considerable discussion regarding wetland restoration. The central open space is well suited for this and ample space exists. Additionally, significant areas exist within the open area to plant vegetation friendly to a variety of insect and animal wildlife. Water quality standards will be dictated by the Minnehaha Watershed District. There is currently a deteriorated drain the system that runs from the SW corner of the site to Lake Minnewashta. This system will be improved as part of the Mattamy proposal. Mattamy is currently preforming a tree survey of all trees within 200' of the proposed centerline in order to further evaluate the proposed lot layout and grading plan. Mattamy Homes Minneapolis -St. Paul Division Traffic Considerations Traffic was a topic of considerable discussion during the PAC process. At the conclusion of this process, it was generally agreed that the traffic concerns (Country Club Road corridor, Eureka/ SH 7, Smithtown Rd /CR 19, CR 41 /SH 7) were existing issues and that the development of the site with the number of homes proposed would not make the conditions considerably worse. It was also concluded that the golf course site didn't present any opportunities to correct the problems. Mattamy retained a separate traffic consultant who reviewed Stantec's work and has issued a Tech Memo stating that they confirm the approach and agree with the results. It is expected that the proposed development may present opportunities to provide pedestrian safety along Country Club Road and Smithtown Road. This is discussed with "Pedestrian Circulation" below. Access is proposed from Smithtown Road on the north and Yellowstone Trail to the south. During the PAC process it was noted that the west 1/3 of the property was served with only one access; it was recommended that providing another access should be considered along with the redevelopment of the 12 properties between Smithtown Road and the Minnetonka Country Club. While Mattamy believes this to be, in concept, a reasonable idea, we believe the redevelopment of the north property into a higher density use presents problems due to the configuration of the land and the difficulty involved to assemble 12 properties without public subsidy. The acquisition price alone of the 12 properties comes very close to the retail value of the lots if the property could be developed at 3 units an acre. After exploring the redevelopment potential of the area, Mattamy has concluded that a more likely redevelopment scenario is that the properties will, over time, be acquired as "tear- downs" with upper -end homes subsequently built on then. It would be anyone's guess as to where to "point" a stub street at the area suggested as being redeveloped. If wetland impacts were contemplated, an access could be built to Smithtown Road in the northwest corner of the site to line up with Fairway Drive to the north of Smithtown. Mattamy believes that a preferable option would be to install an emergency vehicle access (through the 20' wide non - wetland strip that currently serves as a back access to the MCC property) that will double as a trailhead to the trail system that will wind through the central open space, eventually connecting to Country Club Road and Badger Park. Pedestrian Circulation Throughout the PAC review, comments were made regarding the desire to build trails along the periphery and interior of the site. Mattamy proposes to address this with the following: 1. Participation in the sidewalk improvement project along Smithtown Road Mattamy Homes Minneapolis -St. Paul Division 2. Construction of a trailhead on Smithtown Road south of Fairway Drive. This trail would wind through the neighborhood with the primary focus on the central open space, connecting to the proposed trail along the west side of Country Club Road. 3. An off -road trail west of the tree line along Country Club Road. This trail would connect to other trails and sidewalks within the neighborhood and central open space. 4. Sidewalks will be incorporated into the street design as agreed upon by the City and Mattamy. Site Data The Site Data is as follows: Gross Site Area: 118.64 acres Existing Wetlands (to remain) 5.57 acres ROW (extern ble Area: 2.45 acres 111.9 acres ROW (internal) 11.15 Total Open Space: -50.0 acres (includes Wetlands, Ponding, Wetland Restoration /Raingardens, Tree Preservation, Wetland Buffers, Screening Buffers, & misc. open spaces) Total Lot Area: 55.04 acres Proposed Single Fam. Lots: 140 home sites 90' wide x 180' deep typ. 100 lots 55' wide x 135' deep typ. 40 lots Proposed Single Family Standards: Traditional Proposed Lot Size: 16,200 sf (min) Front Setback: 40' min. Side Setback: 10'/10' (20' total) Side Corner Setbacks: 40' min. Rear Setbacks: 50' min Age Targeted Proposed Lot Size: 7,425 sf (min) Front Setback: 25' Side Setback: 7.7'/7.5' (15' total) Side Corner Setbacks: 25' Rear: 30' Mattamy Homes Minneapolis -5t. Paul Division Going Forward Mattamy continues to perform site investigations on the property. We have currently staked the proposed centerline of the streets with estimated cuts and fills to determine locations that will require the least amount of site disruption. Additionally, we have located all significant trees within 200' either side of the proposed centerline to further refine grading assumptions and determine road and lot layout. We will continue to refine the layout in an effort to preserve as much of the site and it's natural characteristics as possible. While the best plans are often laid to waste, it would be our desire to put ourselves in a position where we could perform demolition of the clubhouse and buildings in August and removal of the contaminated soils over the winter to lessen the impact on the surrounding community. We are aware that a lot of things need to go right for this to happen, but we remain optimistic. Professional Consultants Land Planner Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Engineering and Survey Carlson and McCain 248 Apollo Drive, Suite 100 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Environmental Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company 26105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Soils Haugo GeoTechnical 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN 55407 Legal Winthrop and Weinstine Capella Tower, Suite 3500 225 S 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Transportation Planning Spack Consulting PO Box 16269 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Mattamy Homes Minneapolis -St. Paul Division a, L s Go' ��'�- -1, `�.- ^�° � �� O + y w A „ 1 , r i� -� -r DI 3 ' ^� V V �V �,..I r 1 V I I .�a I i z' __ '"'� ___ —__— � s•,! �!�g� I, I As ��,.�,�,] 1tg I y I 0 r4 i pi OG� a�� I _I 1 NY`sY T� g ZO F- i F .1,1 1 i J I I ow.ra u.0 r o'e I e� I °�.� wrvrB• P° o'n b `' C, TTT / / / sQ -I 1.. sm�. a.'. cL Sw• U � s �� I z u I ' _ f— V J � {��` /; is w -..�r _.: oeT�n n• q4� "� - I i�g (sm Snuf l e)Y 9, 'A ^.' SBB74'S0•E 1 Dwxrz / /- } /,;[,f l/! v 1 xedv i 09 w - 5867 �'S0•E ' _ _ — _ JR97i 'S6•E ' 47 .96 uNOA cr AL I ( /ll / /�Tlf� J2809� /.�__— 0 i__— _ " I %D:.vN)z lwpr, 4 Jf Fiii�jl I r+.• re , ter- , — J 730.36 : !J• - -�_ tC�` *�� ✓r I ROAD Lim b A- i,°+zr,�� d � '•Sy 'C a °" a ai +I'a S M€ 1 `� ` `. r J �3,`t2`, ` 7`� I r .m 6"I � 4 ./r, v ` `r J` mV �/ . � J _ . { ` rG � I' ra.m.�n, .+ w, m °.. . ,,ro, n. ,a.. rn , m,a m .,.mv A,S ,wM Y s , rN , � � A II I - - -nu - .,w a,s s ae+mn .Yr v wu— rrr+t • n , �, r v^ ._ r . m„ . ,o - d 5Y 1n 981 a. iJ� '- I I I O^1 < d ,�, 5 , +,I . ] -, ^E W A \ ; I . ; \ mi k °'o, , ,'1i ,'�"' . �''_ - �i", Tr" . r ' �«e�a ") v+u` :�r r . , ° ", 6-'ar"nµ "a°v ' , ro. n u r ,xs, + . •�' « / r 4 i - r Poo- S .v�]rB i iyiii°a oo+. m .._ `taa I l I o v II � s e_ we] ° + s— D'r g1 ir✓ I _ I F— ~ - 1425. . . O DOb'04- — - - - - - - - - 185 0 Mmneron'a Mt yCFub - Cupho°e - --- - 2437 67593 E rD 3'I4 A Q I — — — Mr. v r„ v r — h, - Y 1 l — -- — — — _nwpra g5•q•E,t,.r..�wa.•i'ma«d Q owxrB E)(CEPTION � 6 s n, e4J0� - Q wcAS °uawi;Lx . cJ r � L7 °yw.rA •°', L — ,IFLL.T DOWEYFII PP ern..,m ,p �� PW yll 2.111'BWB v u — P. i `1A - ALI,E AAPYIFR •= Pm:]]M7Y]rzome I � �'-� /,�' 1 WEIUND \ �\ 1 I w L —m .E U L , 1 — AALx r. Douxz 1 ..�. •-,�— — — — C) ow,+u 4� Pro:arinY]]YDau ` / :� r L Il �E.er A. UAL '• :�'F-- ,� -✓// ,5 PoD:]z117zuxB]a i p /'" +,l I l '� „C)o ci — Npp764ry2_: trw;w� :,st ` P;. » 11� ❑B ` I 5`0' I 03 w- - -. mA w. 4',','�:.� ��,,,P„•�”! � �� j �� « r...: �. .. ...w< r -r��! �.""� a,. r r a `� � r ,avAmAx a e �Dm, I `. I _ _ — _ _ J NATd%NEE NDtlNS (, D T 6 7 _ aw_Arro - 1 I L ____ �1 ._ -°') ti. rro � — ______.___ —__ ____- ______ 685 47 V � . 5� 77 `., q ncn6.n8+�rm`aiYn 0\ Cm A LOT 55 A - A .s _ — — — — Na ' 7 W - -- gsOB ,$ -{ a Ik �eW �Y � S6• Yy s+'Aa `� o 1 v °f2v' fiii.i. �,� '9's "'''SSSSSTTTTT °j fN I Ali r Tai LNOp," s r ,✓ ' i r ,¢xxcssr Bev. ms awx 4� 1 a m^ j°' ♦r w d ✓+* 1 3 BWi--' ' " I I < V L Pw:.vun]].,ppzl I I �� rA NAUrrM • O.� ❑7 F'A 1 ' SR. �' §I i"j �+� ® I ! NBg•4 .y..+1 1 '�� qi I9 %D.ull12 _Y, \ k� 4 q I g Yc mi I ,r! Fi Iwn rte' xsz" 1.1i �� V CCAZr Ae'S rCrA C�e / e6I IIp ]fll ]].l'Up)) ,1 06it .1 Jan IY,n,VJ LJln lttttt]]]]]J LEGEND — I ro I n2 I i ❑� • - Omolm NmnmM Cmnly Mmummt ea noted O Dmol. Mh+ lmema Mmhde - +— r - - DAn.- Undr ..d U.0.ne t - pmoly, Fwntl Ymummt m ..led D -..10 B..N - •• — - D—t- Untlerg —d Dm WC O - 0- t. set Iran Pbe• .-Ad — BLS A fll y ❑ •Mn r ✓'. � $ - Dmolea Llghl Pde c - D.M. D.W. Melm —I— - D•nvlea W°ler M I !n I •�i 8E O - —t. TO.phme Igm --- > - - ->- - 0... • Smllory surer I y I hji. jr g�� v" / \ ft•` J r.�. O - D.— Smllorr Mmhde 6 ` �/ \ �z% •�, D WAR —»— - D 1 Slmn Sewer K ak 3N - d w•.•« v "q .°J / �/ �- - —.. Nlecdlmama Sign mot. 1 r Pd b' - Dmolm Fla Nydrml H - pmolee %vetl Entl Secllm — • — • — m+ ea - Omelm Ede1Mg P•nca ea noted m -p I I °F� � ob _ 1 1/ �i / � � A - r 1 r I \ OJ I i�� N I w - Dm+tea Dvl. vaw o - Omolea storm Mea,a. - wngt. Pe,v anem g — 455.600 r ^ - -. •.r 22 •35 /I ,e 4'. I \z \ I O - Dm+Im D.Idc Boa B - Dmvlea Ward Pm( — T.97 . ` • o I 's C C _ D-1. Fla Pd• g - +_ •• —t. Undmgrmnd Gga - pen<le+ Canm+la Surlem T - -__< _ -- - __ - � <' < —�:�— "% — ~em _ I I r� J✓ I , (,r`t` ^J/ \ / Ex 0 - Dmote+ Cee Nets « — D.M. MA, optic ••• — - Dm<lm a.mmd malty Lln. � �eo i r I ,7' !�� 1 P�— — — — LYE�Fv� *� vvi 1V, �� I ry I I nvnii i ivir qm O I ` �- % I I — — — - IcEr ) Ifibit C ,OPERTY SURVEY z ,—I [" qz 4 ci w� CD U � � 2) (1) o (2) d Cl) U 0 m ca Q) ry c _0 a v cl) a) g) cv N 1.1� L L L Q Q C� (D 'E E� -E c? NCO 6S6L- 68b- £9LIX2A 006L- 68b- £9L:auoyd e ;osauulW 'pooMaaoyg 17TOSS NW 'saljp -I ou1� 'OOT a }Ins 'aa ollody 8vz 8f1'13 A211Nf103 �r/)IN013NNIW 9NI-Mm fts, JNR333N19N3 ^-I—N3 WNo21IAN3 NW ulo�� - GnU O4rDul IOZ a�InS - anuand uo�6wyspM TOZL • S3WOH AWVIJLVW u®slaa� C� O£OZ NV Id 3sn aNV I ®3SOdO'dd ° m o o z ,—I [" qz 4 ci w� CD U � � 2) (1) o (2) d Cl) U 0 m ca Q) ry c _0 a v cl) a) g) cv N 1.1� L L L Q Q C� (D 'E E� -E c? NCO 6S6L- 68b -£9L :XRA 006L- 68t -£9L :a)UOgd e40sauUIN 'poonnaJOyS MOSS NW 's9�e'1 ouij 'OOT ajinS'.Ip ollodV BtZ snl:) AIUNf10:) V)IN013NNIW 9NIA ZIAMnS -°JNRi33NION3 ^"7V1N3WNOMIAN3 6£bSS NW ' 3 UIp��W eui p TOZ 94!nS - anuanV uo}6uiyseM TOZL N O S3WOH AWdll\/W UOS JO o o N I � S1OI2I1SI0 JNINOZ JNIISIX3 w .gay MCI ?� v1 uos ,f ❑ a u 1 ro 1 1 ) t4 Cl) I U) ai , ro V O PSI qnlo LU Ct el q 10 oo U v I SCI - p d , �ea`S� a a a o —+ g S o a CN Q) U! ro Uro ro o . � � U a �Q1 N OT LT C N m N f m U w � � � Q� ll� - ❑❑❑ ❑❑ 9 � PSI >Iaan:] � 13A ri 71 C3 �❑ ❑ y� CI) C1 O O J(] ti ❑ I Z 4 m U ❑ }r W r r r r _ ❑ ry it cn LLI 0 19 K O " v " w c w at 1� /A�j•1, G .r'c� � 7.1 - ,0 y F u 5� o-W° I, � � N r eO o •'O � .,L .. �v d - � pc0 Y C- Cri r-1 P, rm"�u rd a °�'- w a c-ao v� " 7w v .c c�a y ° is",v or'ccom muw U aci C 0.I e o ti O' c o°i a n o o .a .. ou o .�°- W •- c 'c v o m� w° o W h o .c Ra 5 y a S r z ¢° z 5 a° m '� v- O N }� o :� '•-� F ys, m o _ ra m ... o 4 e E o b o a .. �^ ° .m N c 2 c v c i F" 'S c " G en 5 v o a y o• "'°o, m o `� 0 2 O N r .o 'a o° d G c o 'a .c `.0 ,;; o ... `� 'a A o v° a c �'. N W o p m° r 4 .°. z y !^ k y c �N+ ` c' o w n ``• m .c m y 'S :'S W W s e a, '" '6`0 w ° o a o- ru c°, ti sa .a • H ao"o - °' cF°. ". 'g o c .5 c r o E• m o o c « .c° x a H v •� w ^ '^ a o .� y N [u 3 d iv W O' •° o ! �' "' .5 m 5C ..: a H c z N 'Su a .S N = c� F a o9 m `o 'u •o S 'm r�° c: U i ti ^. ° °° x 5 w o' .c a .� ,H w •o c° s c w `. S O 2 w ? 9 U a ti t N .� ,R N cm 'x ❑ is -• DD n m d V M U p t O .. O -O„ m 'F _ v O z y m m° v d W a ,$ o rn .c e° .5 0 >, �' .c .o W 'y s° S c 'y .d o •S d Z •'o n` z n `. y+ N y" u y y .N c m- a o .G m '$ v T o e ,� o w x Z y" c •° o A a e N° ,;; v o ..c.. =1 ,.j Z 5 O W u y1 o o ri W aoi o. ti G m W❑ Q U _ _ �i n v o a c a " G°G o , .5 ° y m •9 F 6 5 �° " v w a '� a •^� C� w W ^', '°ro .o-1 ^ o pa •p°p .. C y F .'L' .5 N E n -❑ � fA C '.v-' p ..>. y O� ^u r. E D O O vO. M O '' d C. m M 0 5 C o m C" v 55 C. C O o M 0 0 0 o% v 9 N H V .ar 5 .y c a °m, m ., o c C a) ILI C U' o m c a C c. o o W a .= .5 01 ° m o .c �i s a iO " v o 'S m: '! a o B o v o Z o o° z s c z g U �., n a .a ❑ ❑ O ° d atJ y C W d y O O CO O V .fl [L v❑ - U ,L' G o o w -Ei v v C N v h a"i O C o = m ."yC y SJ- C -C. e�i� .G m O tOi v- 0.4 NC O C w o p .- .c 10 o r ... 4 •a H o. >: �' o o, y •N o m GG� o e `0 2 'v z r W o I''@mIIIII eIA'� y � r c W W WO C 1u' " w `� •g " c n Oti «. ' ro a .o z r13A :.? , = y c O .i " W � ` °o 0 a n a uo p $ 'e y y z o " •a° P v c _ w° O5 U o '4 ° ti i V o c i°A a o Z m 5 rd ° ° > h ° ° O m u 'c •'°o � ' ° " [" ii \'.AW1I9p cc? O ,c c [u .a 5 o c a v v x F v •S m y °o W d a 3 v r,, . cE 1O W ran c r m a°�i° •°^ 1 , Fcz aaxz O' f- a Fv _ yvoi. .5z .Jw ..1 <C°C .ot oaU w ° '• i 1 )' !' � ^_- _1,Lr% � QQ../ �� \`'\\1\ ,;,\ � � / �J�� l",. /r /i , /��hy.;,..j i1(t -��\, ,.,- �;�`, \`l\ 1\ Ir •.�JII /•;� /�. �l�i�; /� �i ��/ %� /�(i-w" ii1tr - t \ >> \ v / ✓ f C JIB N �tl \I \ LU \ % J 1 III ti\ �.,..; i ' /'ll ! /' '�J �✓�� \1`.4� , \ \' Jrr""��T r,r,\( 1 \,\ \Cy �� ✓.,1 v ( � \\ ••, �.�/ // .� —)/ _ %�_ i i b713M i } I } j (�� ' '�, \: \,`L_ \ ,/ — j ��l \' \ \' •'``6c l' \ �- `� \11 \t ' I �, � { _.� \ . � i� �` / ! i % I ) � ��' /•-� _�- __ _.. .\ y'• \• \\ 1 /// � 1 � � t\ \\ \. c �,\ / f Ili �� / /�jt %.1I I1`� � /!J� ' /� � - - -� � .- s�'•,'�\,\ ,.. / � /i/ � �` \\ \ }\ , III �I� �� f _L TI �Fl�` � \ \� '`` -,`!) f � *. � ^� `' /' - ,��a: •:,;` - k - ---T I- ``_= �-- �- •_ -`�.1 �'l'' -- l 1�� \t I � uj cNV gym' '1``= ,11; „(' /� ' ►� jl'iNJ /� �\ 4 j ;;�J(r-ji ✓,I`Ij (` / r �.^�,,.; I `VIII \../ �I // � I` � ; \`I ; \`' \�` I� � \�•�'��`�'` `-\JI ��/ I JiIII'I `I �/ b��/ � //! I l/ r � I `, �`,\,\ \�,`�.,' ,r- 1. � II i i J , $ ', \ � 1 -' `` ', �-'” � \ \� � ____ ❑ � i w1 Ali' � , . /- �� /�� '% �' / \ •�. , \\\ �, � \,� .,_� / 1 J� I \{ �� . \ J „ \�\ '`•� z (l \� /' " -� /h I ��, t.. -•,r,I '`, ! \� \�\ _ l t/� �Ii "1 ,�r PSI''' J.� / /e�� "•• z�, ~\ \ \� r \ , Imo/ \` � � \, ' \ \� "`'�"ti "" `�,, �� I' i •�(��, /�`% �,�~ �— ,\ � \\ J / \ ,I i•' i 11 r \`\,l\`` \� / / /� / /{j}/q�� _ -.," . \, `ti\;'i / P I v I / / // r-'. �\ �\ VA IW `' \.,._ \ i �t ,�.,i \_ i i` i. ) ` ` -•i ` �\ ^ ✓�•`` J =�� .'j/ 6S6/- 68t,- £9L:Xed 006L- 68t7- £9L :auoyd KOSS NW 'saN2� oUI 'OOT a ;!nS '�a ollody S'bZ IA3A '' JN2if1S-9NRf33NI9N3 ^- IY.LN3WNOt1IAN3 I.IOSIap:) �, e�osauulW 'pooMaaoyg Snia A'dlNno3 VNN013NNIW - @nUD NW 046U TpZ ajing - anuany uo�6ultaseM TOZL S3WOH JlWt�llt/W � �- , e ; m SNOIlI4N0� 31IS ;a �w 0 19 K O " v " w c w at 1� /A�j•1, G .r'c� � 7.1 - ,0 y F u 5� o-W° I, � � N r eO o •'O � .,L .. �v d - � pc0 Y C- Cri r-1 P, rm"�u rd a °�'- w a c-ao v� " 7w v .c c�a y ° is",v or'ccom muw U aci C 0.I e o ti O' c o°i a n o o .a .. ou o .�°- W •- c 'c v o m� w° o W h o .c Ra 5 y a S r z ¢° z 5 a° m '� v- O N }� o :� '•-� F ys, m o _ ra m ... o 4 e E o b o a .. �^ ° .m N c 2 c v c i F" 'S c " G en 5 v o a y o• "'°o, m o `� 0 2 O N r .o 'a o° d G c o 'a .c `.0 ,;; o ... `� 'a A o v° a c �'. N W o p m° r 4 .°. z y !^ k y c �N+ ` c' o w n ``• m .c m y 'S :'S W W s e a, '" '6`0 w ° o a o- ru c°, ti sa .a • H ao"o - °' cF°. ". 'g o c .5 c r o E• m o o c « .c° x a H v •� w ^ '^ a o .� y N [u 3 d iv W O' •° o ! �' "' .5 m 5C ..: a H c z N 'Su a .S N = c� F a o9 m `o 'u •o S 'm r�° c: U i ti ^. ° °° x 5 w o' .c a .� ,H w •o c° s c w `. S O 2 w ? 9 U a ti t N .� ,R N cm 'x ❑ is -• DD n m d V M U p t O .. O -O„ m 'F _ v O z y m m° v d W a ,$ o rn .c e° .5 0 >, �' .c .o W 'y s° S c 'y .d o •S d Z •'o n` z n `. y+ N y" u y y .N c m- a o .G m '$ v T o e ,� o w x Z y" c •° o A a e N° ,;; v o ..c.. =1 ,.j Z 5 O W u y1 o o ri W aoi o. ti G m W❑ Q U _ _ �i n v o a c a " G°G o , .5 ° y m •9 F 6 5 �° " v w a '� a •^� C� w W ^', '°ro .o-1 ^ o pa •p°p .. C y F .'L' .5 N E n -❑ � fA C '.v-' p ..>. y O� ^u r. E D O O vO. M O '' d C. m M 0 5 C o m C" v 55 C. C O o M 0 0 0 o% v 9 N H V .ar 5 .y c a °m, m ., o c C a) ILI C U' o m c a C c. o o W a .= .5 01 ° m o .c �i s a iO " v o 'S m: '! a o B o v o Z o o° z s c z g U �., n a .a ❑ ❑ O ° d atJ y C W d y O O CO O V .fl [L v❑ - U ,L' G o o w -Ei v v C N v h a"i O C o = m ."yC y SJ- C -C. e�i� .G m O tOi v- 0.4 NC O C w o p .- .c 10 o r ... 4 •a H o. >: �' o o, y •N o m GG� o e `0 2 'v z r W o I''@mIIIII eIA'� y � r c W W WO C 1u' " w `� •g " c n Oti «. ' ro a .o z r13A :.? , = y c O .i " W � ` °o 0 a n a uo p $ 'e y y z o " •a° P v c _ w° O5 U o '4 ° ti i V o c i°A a o Z m 5 rd ° ° > h ° ° O m u 'c •'°o � ' ° " [" ii \'.AW1I9p cc? O ,c c [u .a 5 o c a v v x F v •S m y °o W d a 3 v r,, . cE 1O W ran c r m a°�i° •°^ 1 , Fcz aaxz O' f- a Fv _ yvoi. .5z .Jw ..1 <C°C .ot oaU w ° '• i 1 )' !' � ^_- _1,Lr% � QQ../ �� \`'\\1\ ,;,\ � � / �J�� l",. /r /i , /��hy.;,..j i1(t -��\, ,.,- �;�`, \`l\ 1\ Ir •.�JII /•;� /�. �l�i�; /� �i ��/ %� /�(i-w" ii1tr - t \ >> \ v / ✓ f C JIB N �tl \I \ LU \ % J 1 III ti\ �.,..; i ' /'ll ! /' '�J �✓�� \1`.4� , \ \' Jrr""��T r,r,\( 1 \,\ \Cy �� ✓.,1 v ( � \\ ••, �.�/ // .� —)/ _ %�_ i i b713M i } I } j (�� ' '�, \: \,`L_ \ ,/ — j ��l \' \ \' •'``6c l' \ �- `� \11 \t ' I �, � { _.� \ . � i� �` / ! i % I ) � ��' /•-� _�- __ _.. .\ y'• \• \\ 1 /// � 1 � � t\ \\ \. c �,\ / f Ili �� / /�jt %.1I I1`� � /!J� ' /� � - - -� � .- s�'•,'�\,\ ,.. / � /i/ � �` \\ \ }\ , III �I� �� f _L TI �Fl�` � \ \� '`` -,`!) f � *. � ^� `' /' - ,��a: •:,;` - k - ---T I- ``_= �-- �- •_ -`�.1 �'l'' -- l 1�� \t I � uj cNV gym' '1``= ,11; „(' /� ' ►� jl'iNJ /� �\ 4 j ;;�J(r-ji ✓,I`Ij (` / r �.^�,,.; I `VIII \../ �I // � I` � ; \`I ; \`' \�` I� � \�•�'��`�'` `-\JI ��/ I JiIII'I `I �/ b��/ � //! I l/ r � I `, �`,\,\ \�,`�.,' ,r- 1. � II i i J , $ ', \ � 1 -' `` ', �-'” � \ \� � ____ ❑ � i w1 Ali' � , . /- �� /�� '% �' / \ •�. , \\\ �, � \,� .,_� / 1 J� I \{ �� . \ J „ \�\ '`•� z (l \� /' " -� /h I ��, t.. -•,r,I '`, ! \� \�\ _ l t/� �Ii "1 ,�r PSI''' J.� / /e�� "•• z�, ~\ \ \� r \ , Imo/ \` � � \, ' \ \� "`'�"ti "" `�,, �� I' i •�(��, /�`% �,�~ �— ,\ � \\ J / \ ,I i•' i 11 r \`\,l\`` \� / / /� / /{j}/q�� _ -.," . \, `ti\;'i / P I v I / / // r-'. �\ �\ VA IW `' \.,._ \ i �t ,�.,i \_ i i` i. ) ` ` -•i ` �\ ^ ✓�•`` J =�� .'j/ Imo' 9 C) � -.1 LIA = w Z _ tv M m W W z .°n � n V U A, ' �� \.r. �Irl - _I1i�l� V�V`'�- j�� t \ -� f�� /� -�i% �� I i '� -�� \ i i % I�r I Q t 6 .'�i 4 i Jl 41-! 4 -' 01 �. V-1 ` 7 ( IJ ,�� zx -/� 1 Ji " 1p 7 6S6L- 6817-£9L .xe=l 006L- 6817 -E9L :auoyd KOSS NW 'saMej oul-1 'OOT aglnS '-ia ollodV 817- JNLk3A8ns - JNIN33NI @N3 ^ 1V1N3NN02VM2 uOsIjo� eaosauulW 'pooMaaoyg an'm A211NnO3 VNNO13NNIW 6£17SS NW 'eU1Pg i0Z a4lnS - anuany u0j6ul4seM TOZL S3WOH AWVIIVW o ~ m 'o Nt/ld 1d3�N0J /M Wt0 DVId JNISSVW 33211 N< N o N zo Imo' 9 C) � -.1 LIA = w Z _ tv M m W W z .°n � n V U A, ' �� \.r. �Irl - _I1i�l� V�V`'�- j�� t \ -� f�� /� -�i% �� I i '� -�� \ i i % I�r I Q t 6 .'�i 4 i Jl 41-! 4 -' 01 �. V-1 ` 7 ( IJ ,�� zx -/� 1 Ji " 1p 7 6S6L- 68t- £9L :xed 006L- 6" -£9L ;auoyd KOSS NW 'sa )Je] oull 'OOT a4pS 'a0 ollody 8 'JNIA3AUnS^ ONR133NION3 >'IVJ- N3WNOUTAN3 uia:)Orq uospo:) () e40sauuiW 'PoomT,jo45 gniD A211NnoD V)IN013NNIW M3IA IVII13V 6£tiSS NW 'eu!P3 TOZ a}inS - anuany uO;6ulyseM TOZL S3WOH AWVIIIVW tOF °� a«`i `� ° ° "' .a •5 o .' m F W t y Q m q a«i C A mvr'io T° 'S «- oM' m c %'a •O C v 5 C m 'J O '° a °' w v 3vr«. v u r � F o vNi ..S O' £ c M m• W GO rn d e u v d ` 'a � « '- ^ i � W Lo, ± G F C o m 0.l m q .� v ` °' .^ e d u w g M zN c c o E ti r W$ '� w V � ._ •O o u a O ^r a o v ''G v 00 E o o o ° o Z o U] •C v Q x •a N O y O C w O If° �.. o A. O z `3i t v" „ C _ 4) ,� L, .� W w 'i O M !%� ° F° tO" C GG�.. •o p� O W x C C v "a o ` �.: w ° .�D .G C ^ O '«°^ (ln `- 2. 4a g y O y O a- G '^ C9 :.. m M F H N d d S O d bC '3 ••W � O C V Eo ,G YOy. O° NS U« .n " O y O r-1 •O •"C°' C y G' N a C �Ej ^ d z G V ^ ° T. O 0O O 4p oi L"`O0 C t :a m m C Oq y b C , lO = G 0 2 . " ° O VJ y 'G L O z o«N a ;W D H V y 7 j Q G °C ' °C ' C C O C C ` O .z 0. y D y o -« a A W W a ti z O a o rE ° . " �` .(C 4°b i ° ¢ F o 'm r G n n z o O 'O _ o " C o ° � a e w 1 �' 4 •£ ra m'. a ? 'M '° w 'ar' ^C v c � U .0 s o PC . ❑ p w Is 0 a � O° " O O C O° z U a 'LS � ti a o o M . .. ti _ i ti C O O w C G ddM ° G O ^C Y 1 c N« N ° M C w rxG i" v W .^OC 'a 'S ?° r. C L N F w W 9pp o <� d 6 W O C a LO O h L C w rr3 o .0 fid ` oo a �' c o El y ff c •a E W 5_ a o •% b a .5 E= °> v a o ti o c W y A C n d = W .9 5c W O W `°' w v C o o u a H o G d w < o U d vw o° r N 1p L' N N m :o '�' 'S c-0 m y .-^. O E p v° d a z E 'N O'. . z° w ✓J p Z 4 Cj 'p 4y T t d L O O O C t° �` o c .y W d ° n - 10 « « � rC w i a $ ✓ � ;V FC «C N =z�' °O �,O yY� ;ti _ "`'� ' -°iO' oy g i w v. ^ n L r yyr°. 6, 2.4 N C O � O ^ . 2 O � w ° O E O '� �j_ a C 4 � . O A L ° C J W w C •z �.°. s ,a °G LW C .°[w C dm . 4 p '�C s o^yaCi O C O �mmy ^ � .� w OC Q �O �. 'D L= yW �' � O � C' �_W `. N Tff .O s yN , , � O �i tW B O¢^ .•'¢ O V �V 'vW _ 5$y-�C o °' •O ° O° 3 "�- ` r a O Cd i o E o z E a F c 'o m z_c m m.. n�n wm z �'`� ' - � ° � , L —v o'°°"c °o°' �m�L vO .� ° «.° °° ' o u ,, " °o � � °: A0' o ,GS Q Qy_ Uc a:Q'^ FW°cO •z .= t F ;c = ° a '•ooOc. r w W A m :? a .� ,� .yiw n .y 9,� . _ '- z E ! d k y v @ " . o ,mU Fv ° � Q 3 mo W L! W O N u y,Ny O IU .0 U r Y (0 11. O C N E E in CA X O ru C 2 N W o ¢ o W m U J O O O C C CD 41 N In 0 O .4 3 w 5 �a N Z 6S6L- 68t -£9L :X2A 006L- 69t,-£9L .auo4d eJosauulW 'poonnaaoyS VTOSS NW 'SGW1 null 'OOT a4InS '-[a ollodd SbZ ' ` JNI),3AtinS -EJNR133NIE)N3- 1tl1N3WNOHIAN3 sm:) XMINno:) mi1N01'3NNYW ® 6£t55 NW 'eulp3 V� TOZ ajlnS - anuany uo46uluSeM TOZL ® S3WOH AWV.LJLVW z w NVId 1d3:)NOD = o w d Ci UUdd QQQ¢QQ t0 (07ON NMN` -ON i � +i Q 0 W V Q W K U Q <W$ ¢ ZQZ�ZQ Z' �Ld OOQQdW CO K Z z C) KW Q QIW-W QQ oow?oo Q W W W W W W W W Q Q O }..- .- •�+ N^ ,� N Fes- ti 0 z 00¢ N N Q O J Q Q¢ Q m¢ X �Wm �W WO UW(n UWNN Q� ¢m 2O ¢0I -I-�O Q p z J N X00 ¢O Z1nOZ2UV7 OW¢ WW OW W W (nOF'W ¢¢oin o�noo�z000 0 oL oorn\n NrnWt'nlninln�.h�In �Z._o Q � ` , , , avo gm \1 \ / Ki o i � ❑ a "... ✓min V-. ❑ !.` �_,- �. ❑ _.. —`.�: - _ m i , 1 ❑_ \I \ \\ III �I _� ❑ - -. ` r t ❑ - 1 LE I , t \ @ @@ / r i �(> V. I 4 V Y I � 1 I I I I I •1 ' I \ — \— =\ — ❑ al IL • \ I l . , I _ I 'li J X11) 'mil W V m O 5 �1 i 2E a CC VEA 6E� -0. 0 0 3 m L 0 W r'!�1 T O r� O � � O 0) O r m a U o� 91 rI ' w or 4-4�+o all I I IIl�o O w 0 CD i a i i Q x ---- 5� - - -- I y I I I�- - -o� -- a 00 O----- 0"b-- -- n tio, 1 f -- OV - - - - -- 1 �I ------- OS-- -�-� -- �I d-� ---- OS- - - - - -- Ll I 0 o 0,09L W ;4 • • rr' "I� O �4-j O ri O O O O O O w z r Ld W / 0 0 m U r 3 i 0 i CD E m d � U Q m U_ I I I I O O N N O LO n (] N Co PIT of -H -H -H o m a° Q c Y J O U) � p Q a a 0 0 a 3 C C a m o m o > > a a o E E J W I— U i 0 o v o a m n I O C', 00 rNj I I � � Q c Y J O �ooe� O L L Q ` �c'ncn o > 0 0 J 4 O I Q m U r I I 1 I W Of MIX cz z J z z w U z U 1 Q v o 0 o�ot� 6 Q 0 o Q O L L Q L (n V) O CL O O CL Q- J O • p j N N Z O EE 0 W J Q U � N' W U O0 Lwi = Z Q cD Ln O a. o o rn r z � �n � rn r=+ O CO z O W ; CL a U X -~ G Y 0 U J m C Li X = W � O = J O Ld Q - U N W U_ O LWi = Z d Q C� o o rn z in in r u� rn w t� ZCc, w O� o o in J Uz x W O X �Vz0C, z �a •� w O O r 'D J .�0 —'—' Q1 O ul Q 7 00 N a O z J O U W U J Q w U N W U O Wi = Z D- Q yco U N ¢ O a. o o rn r z � �n � rn r=+ O CO z O W ; CL a U X -~ G Y 0 U J m C Li X = W � O = J O Ld Q - U N W U_ O LWi = Z d Q C� ZCc, w u-] u� m O• O ul W y r L U o X �VZ�LL w O yco um ¢ �� O z Ld 0 o to > w oa c Q s0 Sa ck lc"_ pTRAFFIC STUDY COMPANY Technical Memorandum To: Rick Packer, Mattamy Homes From: Bryant Ficek, P.E., P.T.O.E. Date: July 7, 2015 Re: Traffic Impact Review— Proposed Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment in Shorewood Mattamy Homes has proposed to redevelop the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) site into a housing development. Located in the area bounded by Smithtown Road, Eureka Road, Country Club Road, and Yellowstone Trail, the now closed golf course could accommodate 121 single family homes. The potential traffic impacts of this redevelopment have been studied by the City. The purpose of this memorandum is to review the City's work to ensure standard practices were followed and determine if additional study is needed or warranted. The information presented in the Transportation Workshop on April 28, 2015 was used for this review. Study Methodology As presented, the traffic review of the proposed MCC redevelopment followed a standard methodology in examining the existing transportation system, examining the existing land use versus the proposed land use, identify traffic issues, and determining potential improvement options. Information was obtained from the City, the Minnesota ,Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the Met Council, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), which are common sources routinely used for these types of reviews. The volumes, roadway capacities, trip generation, and traffic projections were all accurate and appropriately used. The presented information and traffic review was properly completed using standard procedures and common resources. No issues were found with the methodology. Full Traffic Impact Study Requirements Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) provide an assessment of existing and future traffic operations to identify the impacts of a proposed development. The proposed MCC redevelopment used daily volumes to examine the surrounding roadways. A TIS can also identify capacity deficiencies at key intersections and potential mitigation to avoid safety or operational problems due to expected traffic from a proposed development. However, this level of detail in a TIS is not always necessary. MnDOT has the following guidelines that trigger the need for a fuller detailed TIS: • Development proposals that are estimated to generate more than 250 peak -hour vehicle trips or 2,500 new daily trips • Development proposals that will be evaluated sufficiently by applying other elements of guidance from the MnDOT Access Management Manual, such as access spacing If these guidelines are not satisfied, than an intersection review in a more detailed TIS is generally not needed. The proposed MCC redevelopment to 121 single family is expected to generate up to 1,252 trips on an average weekday and up to 125 trips during an average peak hour. Both fall below the threshold that suggests a more detailed study is necessary. Therefore, the review based upon daily volumes is acceptable for the proposed project. Furthermore, with the golf course now closed, new traffic counts would be artificially lower and not reflective of the existing land use if still open. Exhibit F APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT REPORT Spack Consulting 2 of 2 Traffic Impact Review for Mattamy Homes Proposed MCC Redevelopment Study Results Based upon the information presented, the traffic review of the proposed MCC redevelopment concluded that: • The existing area is a unique area by the Lake, making it more desirable for residents but also complicating the transportation system. • There are existing transportation issues on the surrounding roadways that were present with the former golf course and unrelated to the proposed MCC redevelopment. • The expected traffic from the proposed housing is higher than the former golf course. • The surrounding roadways have available capacity, in terms of daily volumes, to accommodate the increase in traffic associated with the proposed MCC redevelopment. • The previous improvements to the County Road 19 /Smithtown Road /Country Club Road intersection reduced cut - through traffic. • Improvement options are limited by the topography, available right -of -way, and cost -to- benefit of a project. These points are all reasonable given the information presented and consistent with conclusions we would have drawn. Conclusions and Recommendations The principle findings of this technical memorandum are: • The traffic review of the proposed MCC redevelopment followed standard methodology. • A more detailed study, such as a peak hour intersection review, is not necessary given the relatively small trip generation of the proposed housing. • The results of no significant impact on the surrounding roadways is accurate and similar to what we would have concluded given the information presented. • Options to improve existing traffic issues are limited by the characteristics of the area. Although options are limited, more study should be completed to fully flesh out potential improvements and evaluate their potential effectiveness and trade -offs. For instance, speed humps would result in lower speeds and may further reduce traffic, but would result in more noise and present a daily obstacle for residents. Speed humps are not acceptable on Municipal State -Aid Streets either. Potential improvements should also recognize /encourage other modes of transportation. FILE COPY Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings & Recommendations As Presented to the City Council June 8, 2015 Attachment I INTRODUCTION The owners of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) decided to close the golf course and related facilities and extended a private offer to sell to a selected group of private developers The offer presented by Mattamy Homes was accepted and Mattamy currently controls the property. The Subject Property is currently guided Public - Semi Public on the Comprehensive Plan and it is zoned R 1 A Low Density Residential, Any residential reuse of this property will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and may require a rezoning to a different underlying zoning district and /or a Planned Unit Development. The City did not seek the closure of the golf course. This was a private decision by a private land owner, The land was not offered for sale to City, all or in part. Therefore, the control that the City has over the future use of the property is limited to its authority to control the Comprehensive Plan, zoning and subdivision approval. The Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)- an intentional farm of community engagement A change in land use of the scale of the MCC property affects every property owner in the City to a lesser or greater extent. It is also a change with multiple implications. There are many factors that need to be understood and thought through to make well- reasoned decisions. It is important to engage the community on matters of this significance and multiple forums and approaches need to be deployed to share information and capture input. One of the inherent challenges is that it is difficult for residents to take the time to become fully informed about all of the relevant issues, or to listen to the viewpoints of other stakeholders. The Planning Advisory Committee concept is not intended to replace any of the standard public notice, public hearings, community informational meetings, websites, or other community engagement opportunities, It is an additional opportunity for a selected group of community residents to become fully informed about the project and then share their opinions with the City Council and Developer, The City Council identified and invited participants from throughout the City. They included residents who own property very close to the MCC Property and others who live in other parts of the community. Many of the members have served in the community in the past in either an advisory or elected role. PAC members attended a total of nine workshops and a meeting with the City Council on June 8, 2015. A graphic illustration of the process they participated in is attached as an appendix to this report. The process began with the members identifying all of the issues that they believed were important to address and all of the questions that they wanted answered, They also participated in a form of SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities & threats) and shared their visions for a successful future for the MCC property. The next several workshops were educational in nature. They covered the nature and limits of the City's authority, the rights of the land owner, land economics, comprehensive planning, zoning, subdivision regulations, natural resources, traffic, area -wide redevelopment, parks, open space, trails and more. All of those presentations and all of the input from individual PAC members is available to support the Council and developer moving forward. C;\ Users \jshardlow \Desktop \Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations.docx The following summary is Intended to support the PowerPoint presentation given to the City Council on June 8, 2015, Council Direction In addition to authorizing the overall process the City Council specifically asked the PAC members to: • Explore housing alternatives • Evaluate ways to leverage the value created through redevelopment • Evaluate potential street realignments • Consider park dedication and reuse options Findings Related to Traffic: • Flagged as a key issue from the very beginning; by far the most referenced issue on all of the PAC member's lists • Biggest challenge is the fact that the "cut through" (Country Club /Yellowstone /Linden) is a designated collector (MSA route) • It is NOT IMPROVED TO COLLECTOR STANDARDS • The net increase in traffic between a fully functioning golf course and the proposed development is not significant • Traffic conditions in the neighborhood vicinity are locally significant. Additional study is recommended to identify the best approach to Improving the existing roadway system • The majority of the members did not favor closing Country Club Drive. The City EMS, Fire and Police all opposed this option as well Developer's Responsibility • Subdivision provides opportunity to address right of way issues on Country Club Drive • Tax revenues (abatement) can support the funding of a trail on Smithtown • Provide trail paralleling Country Club on MCC property Proposed Zoning • The Mattamy proposal (either with or without age - targeted housing types) would fit within the R -1 C District standards • Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning may not be essential, but could still prove mutually beneficial Issues: The following were the issues that were cited most frequently by PAC members, although all of their individual responses are important • TRAFFIC • Drainage • Density- housing types, costs • Trails • Public access to open space • Chance to do something Cool - mini town center • & More C: \Users \jshardlow \Desktop \Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations.docx Vision The redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property resulted in a highly valued new Shorewood neighborhood. New housing choices infused the community with new residents, economic value and new opportunities, Modern building technology and excellent development practices combined to achieve energy efficiency, the conservation and enhancement of natural systems and other sustainable objectives. Traffic generated from the development was accurately predicted and successfully managed through a combination of design improvements and mitigation strategies. SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION TOPICS: There were a number of key issues that were identified as very important, Some of these issues were directly relevant to the direction provided by the City Council at their January 17 retreat. Each of the issues are identified along with the specific discussion questions, followed by the consensus responses of the PAC. 1. Badger Park Redevelopment a. Should the City pursue the redevelopment of Badger Park? b. Should the City pursue redevelopment of the Lucky's site? c. What is the optimum future use of the northwest corner of Smithtown /Hwy 19 /CC Road? PAC Responses: • Nearly unanimous support for aggressively pursuing the redevelopment of properties surrounding the intersection, but moving the ball fields is probably not necessary • Some remain open to relocating ball fields on to the MCC Property. This would preclude the large wetland restoration 2. Open Space Options a. Should the ball fields on Badger Park be relocated to the Matfamy site? b. Passive open space and trails open to the public? c. Small scattered wetlands and ponds versus larger restored wetland? PAC Responses: • The majority favored the restoration of wetlands, passive open space and trails versus relocated ball fields • The trails and open space should be open to the public • The footprint of the restored wetland should be as close to the historic size as possible, while preserving significant trees and meaningful open space and trails 3. Potential future redevelopment along Smithtown a. Should the City explore redevelopment of this area? b, Should the City acquire properties as they come up for sale and bank them until there is a critical mass of City -owned properties and willing sellers to allow a development to proceed? PAC Responses: • Majority open to future redevelopment of this area when property owners are ready to sell and recognized the benefits of planning for the future development of this area in conjunction with the Mattamy project C:\ Users \jshardlow \Desktop \Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations.docx • PAC members recognized that Mattamy may need to acquire one or more properties to provide another access point along Smithtown and avoid excessive cul -de -sac lengths • The group did not take a position on whether or not the City should use its EDA levy to assemble funds to acquire properties as they come up for sale to facilitate future redevelopment. 4. Sidewalk and trail development along Country Club Road a. How important is this trail segment? b. Should the trail be immediately adjacent to the roadway, or separate but parallel? c. Could the north -south trail connection be made as part of the public trails within the development? d. What are the trade- offs /high priorities related to this trail? PAC Responses: • Trail is extremely important • Majority favored "improvement" to Country Club Rd (Yellowstone Trail & Linden) • Descriptions of "improvements" almost all referred to a trail paralleling the road • The trail could be on the MCC Property if it was a reasonably direct connection between Smithtown and Yellowstone 5. Sidewalk along Smithtown a. Is this trail segment a high priority? b. Are there other trail connectors important to analyze? PAC Responses: • Virtually unanimous support • City proceeding with implementation • The City is pursuing Tax Abatement as funding source • Street crossings present opportunities for streetscape improvements and traffic calming 6. Should the redevelopment of the MCC Property and surrounding properties result in the addition of a diversity of housing types? PAC Responses: • The majority favored the inclusion of some diversity in the housing types • Minority just SF ( "multiple price points ") • Some support for workforce housing - affordability, recognizing that the economics of the project made it impossible for the Developer to offer housing at these costs without public subsidy Summary • The PAC members met a total of 9 times between February and June • All of the information that was reviewed, the presentations they received and all of their questions, comments, suggestions and concerns and the tapes of the meetings are all available for review • There was strong consensus regarding all of the Issues summarized above • The best actions to take regarding the Country Club /Yellowstone /Linden collector challenges remain to be determined and warrant further study C:\ Users \jshardlow \Desktop \Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations,docx Lr) cD 1 {l�i��r �rlp fit �: �� }�� •wail �= gilll ... - 11111 �� 1 III r-1 e--I O N a) c-I cD V d fit JIM 40 Li a N V d M 10 N Y p M r N co o a G U z t N CV n y N r N CV) O m O N �/ I� C*J �-- C •� �o a7 N c C - � a C U O V C) N cu • `4 f N Lr) M O N ffl c-i 0 N \ ri t,D e s Srf 4 3 � Q C. ui `2 N E k 0 N r-I q.F vS�T� U d C 41 V) N m 0 N O1 c-I Eel T� LJ •� di i vii •� a N Q O Vs jj N OC O 0) CL 0 O V c O O U io Cl �= o .90) O > i •O LdJ N � � � 6 LJ> � LU C c > c,/ ) i i Eel L 0 N Q1 ci CD 00 0 r., CF) Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Public Meeting Comment Card Responses -- 07.28.15 After reviewing the comments from the Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment meeting, the comments have been divided into three categories: Traffic, Neighborhood and Housing, and Environment and Green Space. Traffic Concerns My comments for the City Council and Planning Commission The issue (or issues) that are most as they make decisions regarding this project: important to me are: Please consider omitting development entrance from Yellowstone Traffic- especially on Yellowstone Trail at and turn east cul de sac backing up to Country Club Road into an the 7/41 Cub Foods intersection! entrance instead. Take a sliver of the eastern edge of the development and use it to widen Country Club into a road able to handle more traffic. Yellowstone is narrow, windy and tree lined and already unsafe for pedestrians. Any additional traffic, particularly west of Country Club Drive would be dangerous. Current planning seems to be attempting to discourage traffic on Country Club. What if the south exit on the development exited east onto Country Club... but more land was taken from the golf course to widen and improve Country Club Rd? Make it a boulevard with separated traffic lanes. Country Club Lane has no signage - We have lived on Smithtown Road since 1983 and have witnessed dramatic increase of vehicular traffic. It's become difficult at nearly any time of the day to access Smithtown. With this development and the opening of Kowalski store, we anticipate worsening conditions. The traffic on Country Club and Yellowstone is already terrible. - The cut through from CR 19 to Cub Foods be Adding these homes and all their cars will be devastating. closed or upgraded with a trail Will there be signage that our road Country Club Road is a private road or will be opening it to "thru traffic" as we are used to families with children bicycling young and old, and children constantly playing on what is now a quiet, "dead end rd ". Will you be adding on to our road- Club Lane and open to traffic to this home owners and the new development. We were told that there would be no more than 110 -120 homes and now there are 1401 This is way too much traffic for our roads - our schools are full already. The proposed North to South traffic west of Country Club is a terrible idea. Location of traffic through lanes is a very bad placement I live across the street from #140 proposed. The main Southern The entrance /exit on the south onto entrance /exit into this development is directly across from my Yellowstone house. This is a very quiet portion of Yellowstone currently, which is why we moved here 6 years ago. The idea of routing traffic in /out of this development onto this portion of Yellowstone is a horrible idea. I have been in the custom home design /build business for 22 years. I will either move or get every single neighbor to protest on this! Please have Mattamy contact me if they are interested in Attachment II buying my home for their entrance /exit green space or something like that. I will wait to hear from them and stay in touch with the city until they do. I think Yellowstone Trail has a lot more traffic on it since Cub Traffic on Yellowstone Trail moved in, even those traffic studies have been made. I wait for 10 cars to go by before I can get out of my driveway. When the light changes on 41, 1 have to wait for 10 cars to go by before I get out. Same goes for traffic on Highway 19. The neighborhood adjacent to this location had concerns when Cub Traffic on Yellowstone, water draw down, was proposed- at the meeting I felt we were pacified rather than forced into C 2 G and city water down the respected as a neighborhood. Is this going to happen again and the road city will bow to the developer, rather than uphold the wishes of the current residents No planned pedestrian /bike trail on Yellowstone? Traffic on Yellowstone with planned access road across from Club valley. High speed on Yellowstone Trail from Country Club Road west has Traffic, landscaping (trees), water usage, markedly increased already this summer and needs to be affordable housing is non - existent monitored and decreased prior to this project beginning so that behaviors can be in place. The cul de sacs that stop at country Club make no sense- traffic will be "forced" down on to Yellowstone which is wrong. We are getting caught up in the developer's ideas for quiet cul de sacs in their new neighborhood and forcing their traffic on to our existing neighborhoods roads- this is very unfair. I do not want any more traffic on Country Club or Yellowstone or Lake Linden. You need to close down Country Club and push all traffic to County Rd 19. Improving it will just encourage faster traffic. There are houses with dogs and kids on Lake Linden and it is windy and no one ever obeys the speed limit. I like narrow lanes and slow traffic with lots of trees along them. This is why I live here. I am also concerned about the water. We have a well and are concerned that 140 more homes will draw down our water supply. I think the lots are too small and the houses too big and not very architecturally appealing- all the same. Use Club Lane for Smithtown access 1. 1 do not think that the city council has the best interests of the Traffic and density neighboring properties in mind 2. Traffic will increase. Even a small increase in traffic flow will exponentially affect intersections at 7/41 and 19 /Smithtown Thanks for your hard work. Please continue to keep in mind the Traffic on Yellowstone Trail and Country inadequacy of nearby roads. They are not appropriate for increased Club. It's unsafe and used already by cut - traffic. through drivers. It is inconceivable that Keep lots of greenspace to maintain the feeling of Shorewood. many more cars will use this route. Trails and sidewalks are necessary, but the traffic itself needs to be re- routed. I am angry- I oppose this plan because it will be over population Too much home density- preserving open and causing more traffic congestion and issues. Shorewood public green spaces, changing population in the works has difficulty serving the established neighborhoods now! schools, closing open enrollment. Larry Brown ignores phone calls and doesn't take action on time. Too many people in the city. Too many bikers and auto and joggers on the road now. Just imagine how many more will be out there. It's not safe and crime is increasing in the area. It really seems crowded and the increased traffic bothers me. Hope Safety concerns with exits coming off they don't start working until 7:30 AM. We older people do not Smithtown Road. The club traffic hardly ever sleep well at night. stopped before, plus the road is always busy in the morning and evening. Need a stop sign and to save the street trees. ** Traffic flow to Hwy 7 * *TRAFFIC Street damage from construction vehicles- who pays for this ?? Drainage issues Please consider me for the group working on the traffic study Long term direction and impact of the city- we need to solve Traffic! I The worsening traffic situation. You can't direct more traffic along Smithtown Road to Excelsior. Need another option to Route 7 , My concern is traffic on Yellowstone and Cub stoplight. I have been Traffic forced off the road several times by drivers while pushing a double stroller and just walking. Need a way to limit traffic. Neighborhood and Housing Concerns My comments for the City Council and Planning Commission as The issue (or issues) that are they make decisions regarding this project: most important to me are: -The more exits out of the neighborhood the better Please don't make a "cookie cutter" - Consider a park centrally located in the neighborhood for children neighborhood. Have diversity among home styles and exterior finishes Ensure the plan adds long term value to the community. Maintain a unique Right now, finalizing plan and proposition that continues to set Shorewood apart from other cookie cutter understanding impacts to property, communities. bike trail, excavation, tree loss etc. These are the ugliest looking homes I have ever seen. No one will buy them The entire development does not at that price! "fit in" to our community! 1. A careful examination of how the disturbance of 70+ years of chemicals 1. Water quality used in turf maintenance will affect the well water of homes adjacent to 2. Affordable housing the golf course 3. Just Wages 2. The claim that a "variety" of housing types are part of the project seems misleading- as seems to be always the case. Affordable housing received at best cursory consideration. Apparently an increase in the number of houses has already occurred. Couldn't there easily be half a dozen $250,000- $300,000 homes scattered among 135 $900,000 homes? 3. Has any investigation been done of Mattamy's sub - contracting practices? Do they generally hire union workers? The city has already granted them a great deal; would it be too much to ask that they guarantee to pay just wages? I appreciate the open house forum Existing adjacent properties will not see increase in property taxes I'm really concerned about the lack of diversity in the model homes Mattamy doesn't cut and run and is Mattamy is building. They are a nat!Qnal builder of moderately constructed held to a high standard that adds to homes. the quality of Shorewood. Architectural integrity is important. This development proposal looks horrible. Wedging 140 houses into the Proposes houses next to existing Country Club is a shame! We border the course and our house is going to houses be looking into the back windows of 3 or 4 houses!! 1 AM VERY UPSET WITH THIS PROPOSAL Environmental and Green Space Concerns My comments for the City Council and Planning Commission as they The issue (or issues) that make decisions regarding this project: are most important to me are: If we are going to develop then we need to also think about recreation areas within that area. Not having some sort of play area for families included in the area does not make sense. There was talk of parks, green space, trails, sidewalks etc. I don't see any of this. Added traffic and density is We boycott this development and are planning to move. too much for our neighborhood! We are set back from the road on Seamans Drive near the back of the property. I Natural tree and plant buffer hope to have a good buffer between the back yard and the construction between my lot and the cul de sac Glad to see more mixed housing- still a need for "workforce" housing in Maximum environmental Shorewood. Would like the project to be attractive from CC Road (trees, trail, protection including wetlands planting). We do not want to look at 2 -3 story walls of mansions. Traffic still needs and pollinator friendly sorting out plantings What about cleaning up all the bushes and weeds in from of the Golf course land. So it looks better, and get rid of weeds on the land down by the country club little red gate, down by our next door neighbor's house and put new grass in the development of the land. Also, put a slow -down sign on Smithtown Road because people drive too fast. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.nm.us • cityha11@ci.shorewood.nui.us ci.shorewood.nm.us DATE: July 28, 2015 TO: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director FROM: Paul Hornby, City Engineer RE: Minnetonka Country Club Concept Plan Review I have completed my review of the proposed concept plans submitted by Mattamy Partnership, with revisions date July 21, 2015. Plans were prepared by Carlson McCain and I have the following general development comments: ■ The concept plan open space is proposed public areas with trails, storm water facilities, and vegetation as an amenity. There has also been discussion as part of the PAC to create or restore wetland in the southern portion of the site. Trails — The combination of trails and sidewalks are recommended with the following modifications: Off- street trails are at least 8 feet in width Sidewalks are concrete and 6 feet in width • Sidewalks are extended on all of the main roadways on one side • Sidewalk should extend from the Smithtown Road access road on the west to east street to Country Club Road Sidewalk or trail should extend to the south end of the Country Club Road trail via the SE cul -de- sac /plat line Off- street trails will need to be designed /constructed to reduce animal and tree root damage Drainage/Water Quality requirements — The proposed development will need to meet the requirements of the City Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requirements. The applicant will need to provide more detailed information about the existing drainage outlet that exits the site toward Yellowstone Trail. The City has very limited information on this drainage system and it is believed to be a private drainage pipe from the site, eventually discharging to Lake Minnewashta. This system appears to be a draintile system and the allowable discharge rate and volume will need to be estimated to meet proposed discharge with the development. The developer will also need to show that there is a legal access to the use of this drainage system for the MCC property. Memo to Brad Nielsen July 28, 2015 Re: Concept Plan Review Minnetonka Country Club Site Page 2 of 2 Utilities — Public utilities will need to be extended throughout the plat and stubs provided in key location for future extension and connections. • Watermain — The Smithtown Road watermain is 16- inches in diameter and will be the primary connection of the development water distribution system. The watermain will need to be sized to serve the development needs and looped to the Smithtown Road watermain. Stubs to Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Club Lane will be required at various locations for future extension. • Sanitary sewer — The sanitary sewer connection is to be into the existing MCES sewer located in the SE portion of the site. The connection will need to be permitted through the City and the MCES. The development layout will need to accommodate the existing MCES sewer alignment in this area, or the sewer will need relocation with the development. • The streets will need to be designed with a storm sewer system and storm water facilities to meet water quality, runoff and rate control requirements. The storm water facilities will be outside of the public right of way. Secondary roadway connection to Smithtown Road — A secondary access roadway is needed in the NW or western portion of the site due to the length of the proposed cul -de -sac. The applicant indicates allowing this secondary access road to be part of future development when the property between the proposed concept plan and Smithtown Road develops. The applicant also proposes constructing a trailhead between Smithtown Road and the westerly cul -de -sac for use as an emergency access. An access road to reduce cul -de -sac length is needed as part of this project. The secondary access road is to meet City spacing requirements and is preferred to connect to Smithtown Road at either Fairway Drive or Star Lane. ■ Wetland restoration /creation — The City is interested in creating and /or restoring wetlands in the southern portion of the proposed development open space. The wetland improvements could serve as a means to account for the development wetland impacts and provide wetland bank credits available to BWSR. The City Engineer will work with the city consultant on the feasibility of creating a wetland bank as well as laying out the procedural requirements. Traffic — During the PAC meetings, traffic was a discussion topic that did receive investigation. In general, it was determined that the traffic the development will generate will not contribute significantly to the traffic volume on Country Club Road, as compared to a well functioning golf course with similar facilities. Additional traffic study should be performed by the developer with the development application to estimate traffic loading to Smithtown Road, Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail, and Lake Linden Drive. Additional engineering review and comment will need to be addressed as the proposed project progresses to preliminary plat, construction plans, and final plat stages. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this Concept Plan Review. August 4, 2015 Comments Read and Submitted at Shorewood Planning Commission Public Hearing BY: Ken Huskins My name is Ken Huskins. My wife, Ruth Lane, and I are Shorewood residents and taxpayers, residing at 24075 Mary Lake Trail. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission about your consideration of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) re- development application by Mattamy Homes. I accept that Mattamy Homes, as owners of the former MCC property, has a right and expectation to build homes on this parcel. Yet, as many other Shorewood residents do, I have grave concerns about this redevelopment project and the course of action taken by the City Council and Staff to date. You only have to read the residents comments from the recent Open House, to know that many residents are worried about the impact on our neighborhoods. Some, but not all, of my concerns are the following: 1. Shorewood City Staff are liberally using the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) report as foundational to the positions they are taking after review of the Mattamy application. This is flawed for the following reasons: a. Stantec facilitated the work of the PAC. Stantec, and Stantec alone, fed facts and figures to the PAC, which have not been critically challenged or corroborated by any non - Stantec experts. b. On several occasions, John Shardlow of Stantec reminded the PAC that their role was as a 'focus group only'. Not a recommendation or decision body. Anyone who has everg participated in a focus group already knows that you are simply asked to react to what you are told or shown. c. The PAC report was orchestrated and prepared by Stantec and was nearly devoid of any positions other than ones supportive of the Mattamy Homes project. Case in point: a claim that traffic increase on the adjacent roads would be 'insignificant' as a result of this huge housing development. Anyone living in the area knows that this cannot be true, as traffic using the 'cut -thru' corridor has increased steadily since Cub Foods located at Rt. 7 and 41. Common sense tells you that 140 more homes in the area will create more than 'insignificant' increased traffic. I am familiar with Shorewood's Mission Statement. I interpret 'quality public services', 'healthy environment', and 'visionary leadership' to include safe and adequate road infrastructure and aggressive enforcement of speed limits both for the near and long term. d. That City Staff has placed so much trust in the PAC report shows just how little critical evaluation they have done. Just consider the following, taken directly from a public memo authored by City Planner Director Nielsen, dated January 1, 2015: "...the City Council proposes to enlist the services of an independent planning consultant to oversee the public information process and to offer a 'menu of options' for the subject property and its surrounding areas. One of the challenges posed to the consultant candidates is to try to coordinate their efforts with those of the developer." So, what was Stantec's specific role with regard to the PAC? Was it to be truly independent or was it to coordinate, represent, and even advocate for Mattamy Homes' position? Why has the Staff not sought out a fuller 'menu of options'? 2. While retained by the Shorewood City Council, Stantec has been, and continues to be paid indirectly by Mattamy Homes. Fees paid by the City of Shorewood are being reimbursed to the City by Mattamy Homes. In following the money, it is reasonable to question that Stantec could be considered an agent of Mattamy Homes, thereby establishing the possibility of a conflict of interest. The Shorewood Mayor, City Council, Staff, and the Planning Commission, as bodies that represent Shorewood residents, must do everything in their power to make recommendations and decisions with residents' best interests in sight. Working from accurate, objective information and analyses unfiltered or biased by outside agents such as Stantec is your responsibility and your accountability. Shorewood residents should expect and accept nothing less. I have shared these, and many other concerns, orally and in writing, directly with the Mayor and City Council members over the past 2+ months. Only Mayor Zerby and Council Member Labadie have responded and not once have I received a response as to why my concerns are unfounded or invalid. More recently, I have communicated many of my concerns to reporters at the Star Tribune who previously have reported on the impending redevelopment project. I have been assured of their on -going interest in reporting on the redevelopment project and its impact on Shorewood. Finally, I have made it known to Mayor Zerby that I have high interest to serve on a new Advisory Committee that will take a much deeper look at the local traffic issues and possible solutions. Members of the Planning Commission, I urge you to leave open the very real probability that the findings from this new traffic advisory committee will be markedly different from those reflected in the Stantec -led PAC report. I request that these remarks, hardcopy of which I will now provide to the Planning Commission, be submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you. Ken Huskins 24075 Mary Lake Trail Shorewood, MN 55331 E -mail: krh 2 @grraail.corp Mobile: 612 - 310 -3994 City of Shorewood, Planning Commission Public Hearing, August 4, 2015 Remarks by Henry Miles, 2405 Mary Lake Trail, Shorewood, MN 55331 Thank you Chairman Geng and Planning Commission members for your service to our community and the opportunity to address you tonight. My name is Henry Miles. My wife and I have been residents of Shorewood for 17 years. We live at 24035 Mary Lake Trail. I am speaking this evening because of my concerns that the City of Shorewood in considering the Minnetonka Country Club development has not adequately addressed serious traffic issues of which it is aware. Going back to the beginning of this process, these long- standing issues have been communicated to the Mayor and City Council, and the City's agents including Stantec, by residents verbally and through emails, and on -line via MinnetonkaMindmixerCC.com. As a context for my remarks, I refer specifically to the issue of traffic along what is referred to as the "cut- through" including Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail, and Lake Linden Drive as bounded by the Smithtown / County Road 19 and the Highways 7 / 41 intersections. The cut - through and its southern terminus have also been described by staff, including the City's Planning Director, in various documents and memoranda in possession of the City Council, as quote "substandard ", quote "severely congested ", and quote "not improved to collector standards ". In fact, even our Interim Chief of Police — a 30 -year veteran of the Edina Police Department including 10 year as their Chief of Police — has questioned how effective his department can be with traffic law enforcement given volume and road design issues along the cut - through. In other words, those who oversee and police these roads agree that the cut - through is seriously deficient. It is important for us to recognize that Mattamy Homes, their consultant Spack, and the City's consultant Stantec who is reimbursed by Mattamy do not share our concerns about traffic volume and congestion created by the planned development. Why would they; they are outsiders, they don't live here, and they don't suffer the frustration and danger of these roads on a daily basis as we do. And, honestly, when have you ever heard a developer say that their project would have a negative impact. This does not mean that they are bad people; they are in business to profit. But when they and their consultants claim that the development will not add materially to traffic along the cut - through — when they suggest, in effect, that the Lake Linden Drive / Highways 7 / 41 intersection will become, 'only just a little bit more severely congested' — we all must reflect on the conflicts of interest that arise when any developer postures to get their project approved. We all should also carefully consider when we read their reports and listen to them speak that when the development is completed and last home is sold, Mattamy and its consultants will be long gone on to their next project and they will be unaccountable for the after - effects that we as citizens of Shorewood will be left to endure. I also want to be as clear as I can be on another point, and that is that is it not fair to blame Mattamy for traffic system flaws that preexisted their application. However, this does not mean that the City of Shorewood can or should avoid these issues now given the extra traffic load that the development will add to the road system especially on those parts of the cut - through that are contiguous to Mattamy's property. With this as background, I request that the City of Shorewood require that Mattamy Homes fulfill three requirements as a condition of approval of their plan: • First, Mattamy should be required to shorten the length of their cul -de -sacs projecting toward Country Club Road. Second, Mattamy should be required to eliminate a few homes along that side of the development with the objective of ensuring that the City of Shorewood has a deeper right -of- way in order to convert Country Club Road into a divided and wavy parkway to calm the traffic that travels along it. The idea for a parkway is Mayor Zerby's with which I am in complete agreement. • Finally, Mattamy should be required to ensure that the parkway has both bike and pedestrian paths next to and generally parallel to Country Club Road that are accessible near the corners of that street near Smithtown Road and Yellowstone Trail. These are reasonable requirements for two reasons. First, the density of the project was 'originally advertised' to be 121 homes is now been expanded to be 140 homes so Mattamy has some lots to 'give back'. Secondly, based on historical sale statistics, the $800,000 to $1,000,000 homes that Mattamy has said it will build will take many years to absorb meaning that to give back some lots today should not present a hardship on them. The opportunity to implement a reasonable design for the development proposed by Mattamy will present itself only once: now. Residents of the City of Shorewood should not expect that there will be opportunities for the City to force Mattamy to address traffic safety and congestion issues in the future. It is the City of Shorewood's responsibility to ensure that the issues are addressed up front before approval is given to Mattamy to proceed. In conclusion, the City of Shorewood has a responsibility to address traffic issues that have repeatedly been brought to its attention by residents and staff and that should have been addressed in the past. Furthermore, the City also has an obligation to provide for the future safety and sustainable growth of our community by conditioning approval of development proposals on the adoption of reasonable measures to address predictable and communicated traffic concerns. I therefore ask the Planning Commission as appointed by the City Council as the elected representatives of the residents of Shorewood to seize this important opportunity and recommend the redesign as Country Club Road as I have outlined. As for Mattamy, I hope they will demonstrate their good faith toward our community by offering to adjust their plans and make the accommodations I propose without asking for consideration from the City of Shorewood. I ask that these remarks, hardcopy of which I just provided to the Planning Commission and staff, be submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you again.