Loading...
03 02 2021 Planning Commission Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2021 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Gorham, Gault and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; Assistant City Engineer Baumann, and, Council Liaison Callies Absent: None 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Eggenberger moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for February 2, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  January 5, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting  January 12, 2021 Joint Meeting with Parks Commission Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the January 5, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting and the Joint Meeting with Parks Commission Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote – Ayes all. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Brenda Redwing, 6065 Eureka Road, asked if there would be curb and gutter or retention basins for the proposed project near her home. She stated that she is concerned because when things are built in or around her property, that effects the water storage capabilities and has ended up flooding her property. She stated that she is not happy about the development of this property and reiterated her concerns regarding drainage. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy 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. A. PUBLIC HEARING – PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT Applicant: Stoddard Companies Location: North of Highway 7 between Eureka Road and Seamans Drive CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 2021 Page 2 of 9 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the proposal to subdivide the property into fourteen lots for single-family homes which includes a PUD development stage plan and a preliminary plat. She stated that the homes would have shared maintenance, trash pick- up and be composed of villa style homes. She shared some background on the zoning and land use in the area. She noted that this property has three wetland basins on the site, about two hundred significant trees and will be subject to tree preservation. She stated that this proposal has the fourteen homes clustered around the cul de sac and gave a general overview of the proposal and the grading plan. She noted that the cul de sac will have a surmountable curb and gutter to help direct the water and there will be a barrier curb on the east side of the development. She stated that this property has a high-water table and also two large wetland basins that will need to remain connected even though there is a proposed street. The stormwater treatment will be affected by the high-water table because all of the wetland basins are shallower and effect a larger area than if the developer could put in a traditional pond. She explained that more of the site would be taken up with stormwater features such as dry basins or rain gardens. She noted that there were a few dry basins constructed as part of the Minnetonka Country Club if the Commission would like to get an idea of what they may look like. She explained that because of the high-water table, the homes will be slab on grade with no basements. The applicant is proposing that the homes are detached townhomes with the majority of the site to be used for open space which reduces the amount of impervious surface on the property. They are currently proposing about 22.2 percent impervious surface coverage, but this may fluctuate a bit as the development moves closer to the final stages. Staff is recommending a maximum cap of 25 percent impervious surface or the design capacity of the stormwater features, whichever is less. She explained that staff is also recommending that the applicant assign a specific amount of impervious surface for each home so that the homeowner knows how to plan accordingly. She gave an overview of the plans to bring in about 25,000 cubic yards of dirt onto the property in order to raise the pads, roads, and other structures in order to support the proposed structures. She stated that a CUP would be required to bring in that much material, however with the PUD application the approval is reviewed simultaneously with the development stage plan. She reviewed a few of the conditions related to this detail and their proposal for wetland buffers. She shared some design details of the proposed homes and garage space. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD and the preliminary plan subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Assistant City Engineer Baumann gave an overview of the traffic impact study conducted for this project by Swing Traffic Solutions on behalf of the developer. He stated that the study looked at the intersections of Highway 7 and Eureka Road as well as Eureka Road and Park Lane. He noted that the study found that the development will generate about one-hundred thirty-two trips per day with ten of those being in the a.m. peak and fourteen being in the p.m. peak. He explained that the intersections will still remain at a level of service “A” with those trips factored in. He noted that the only noticeable difference would be the length of the queue, but it only amounts to about one-half of a car and will have very little noticeable effect on the traffic patterns. He explained that the study had also taken a look at the turn lane warrants and found that the traffic volumes of the thru traffic to the right turn doesn’t necessarily warrant a right turn lane, however staff is recommending that they install one. MnDot has also done a preliminary review and they noted that they are recommending pedestrian and bike connectivity which will be provided by the developer with a sidewalk on the north side that connects with the Freeman Park trail. He stated that MnDot also recommended a through roadway connection to Seaman’s Drive which staff is not recommending. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the traffic study was paid for by the applicant. Assistant City Engineer Baumann confirmed that the traffic study was paid for by the developer. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 2021 Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Eggenberger asked what the City’s comfort level is with the independence of the study. Assistant City Engineer Baumann stated that they are very comfortable with it and noted that their traffic engineers also took a look at the information and came up with the same recommendation as Swing Traffic Solutions. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the applicant gets the recommendations from staff at the same time as the Planning Commission. Planning Director Darling explained that as staff reviews the application and gives the applicant their initial comments. The applicant has time to revise their plans, which the developer has done, which reduces the number of conditions. She stated as staff completed the second review of the application, they did meet with the developer and went through a number of the questions and concerns from staff. She stated that although he did not see the final list until the report was prepared for the Commission, she does not think there is much in the recommended conditions that will be a surprise to the applicant. Commissioner Eggenberger asked how far above ground water the slabs for the homes will be. Assistant City Engineer Baumann noted that they are at least four feet above ground water. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if these homes would help the City meet the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Darling stated that the answer is both yes and no. Met Council does recommend that the City increase development where possible, but it does not help the City increase the density of over five units to the acre, which was their last direction. Commissioner Eggenberger asked where the water from the northern wetland area flows. Assistant City Engineer Baumann explained that currently there is a ditch which will be filled in to put in all the improvements and the developers are planning to install a twenty-four-inch concrete pipe that will connect the two wetlands and maintain the flow. He noted that there is also a requirement for an emergency overland flow in case the pipe becomes blocked. Commissioner Eggenberger asked about the timing and approval of the final plat. Planning Director Darling explained that final plat is submitted after the preliminary plat is approved which means the applicant has to take all the conditions that were part of the preliminary plat approval and incorporate them into their plans and submit the final plat application along with the PUD final plan as well. She noted that final plat does not require public hearings, it has a sixty-day review period and then goes to the City Council. Commissioner Riedel asked about the recommendation for soil testing and a soil engineering study. He stated that since there will be wetland buffer modifications and excavation, many times during excavation contaminated soils are discovered which can change the whole trajectory of the project. He asked if there had been any soil testing on either the areas that will be excavated or the wetland areas. Planning Director Darling stated that she is unsure if there has been soil testing completed on the wetlands but the developer has submitted soil borings that were done on the site. She stated that CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 2021 Page 4 of 9 the results of the soil borings are why the developer is suspecting they will need to do some pad corrections. Commissioner Riedel asked if there was any risk to the City if contaminated soils are found. Planning Director Darling stated that there is only risk to the developer and not to the City. Commissioner Gorham stated that the change in the wetland buffer area on Lot 5 is permitted by the watershed but asked if it will require an actual approval process through them. Planning Director Darling stated that in order to do the flexible wetland buffering in this area, the developer will need both the approval of the City and the watershed. Commissioner Gorham asked Planning Director Darling to elaborate on the portion of the staff report that covers the development doing things that are consistent with direction on buffering and transitions in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Darling stated that portion of the report was a continuation of the discussion from the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. She explained that this was one of the reasons that the developer had proposed this clustered development to begin with. She explained that the developer is proposing to keep the south side of the development, where the noise is going to be the highest, as open space. As the development moves north, the majority of the homes will be clustered and the homes will then protect the homes to the north from the noise and activity on Highway 7. She clarified that the development with a higher density housing will be closer to the highway protecting the lower density further north. Commissioner Gorham stated that there are some berms on the south portion of the site and asked if there was a science behind how tall the berms need to be for effective noise buffering. Planning Director Darling stated that they would have to be much higher than what they are in order to provide full protection for noise, but noted that any amount will help. Commissioner Gorham stated that there appears to be a lot of comments regarding tree preservation and there appear to be quite a few revisions still needed and asked how comfortable Planning Director Darling was with the next step. Planning Director Darling explained that the developer is proposing a number of trees in the public right of way, especially along the southside of the new roadway. She stated that she is recommending those trees be placed further back because there is a storm sewer line that is within the public right of way and the drainage and utility easement. Commissioner Gorham stated that one of his concerns about a traffic study conducted in 2020 was how they can account for COVID-19 traffic patterns. He asked for an explanation of the COVID-19 adjustments that were made in the analysis. Assistant City Engineer Baumann explained that the traffic studies were done last fall and were used to get percentages of turning movements and then they used previous overall traffic amounts that were not affected by COVID-19 to project the 2024 numbers. He stated that he feels they were conservative in their estimates and explained that he does not have any concerns. Commissioner Gorham asked what year the historical data was taken from. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 2021 Page 5 of 9 Assistant City Engineer Baumann asked for a moment to find this information. Chair Maddy asked where Outlot B drains and noted that there was a mention of a culvert. He asked if the culvert already exists or if it will need to be installed as part of the project. Planning Director Darling stated that the culvert already exists and appears to be in working order. Commissioner Gault asked about the wetland buffer and Lot 5 and noted that it is a significant portion of the rear of the property. He asked how the buffer will be maintained given that so much of it is within the lot line of the home. Planning Director Darling stated that was another condition that she is recommending for the rear property boundaries to be adjusted so the wetland buffer is actually on the HOA property. Assistant City Engineer Baumann it appears as though the data was taken from the count information they already had along and then factored in the MnDot COVID-19 adjustments spreadsheet which increased the count by 6.5%. Commissioner Gorham stated that percentage seems low to him. Bill Stoddard, 440 Third Street, Excelsior, explained that the concept for this development is to do a clustered development that is HOA controlled. He explained that since this project was last before the Commission, they have shifted their road and the cul de sac about 16 or 17 feet to the south to get it further away from the neighbor to the north. He noted that they have also reduced the setback to match the City ordinances which permitted them to have a bit more surface space to get rid of the second story and have one-level living with the option for second story storage. He stated that they have been in communication with Planning Director Darling and are in agreement with the conditions and recommendations that are noted in the packet. He stated that thus far, they have done about five or six soil borings and will probably do more. He noted that his background is in environmental engineering consulting and he is very comfortable that they will not find any contamination at this location. Chair Maddy asked if Mr. Stoddard had inspected the condition of the culvert running under Highway 7. Mr. Stoddard stated that they will need to do a more thorough inspection during the construction process. Commissioner Gorham asked of Mr. Stoddard had read through the conditions and comments regarding tree preservation. Mr. Stoddard explained that they have seen the comments and agree with the recommendations made by Planning Director Darling. He stated that they are planning to abide by these conditions and have begun to do a bit more work in this area and may have it done before the Council meeting. Commissioner Riedel stated that it seems as though concerns shared by the public on prior plans seem to revolve around traffic and around the fact that this property is currently a heavily wooded parcel with mature trees. He stated that a tree preservation plan to retain that character would be appreciated by the residents who live adjacent to this parcel. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 2021 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Stoddard stated that he agrees and they have taken another look over the last few weeks with the intent of saving more of the trees. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:01 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He noted that there have been a few questions submitted through the chat function and would like to start with those items. Commissioner Riedel explained that Brenda Redwing asked why trees on her adjacent lot were included both on the plan and were marked since they are on her lot. Mr. Stoddard stated that he believes when they are out doing a tree inventory, the property line is not as obvious when they are on site. He stated that he suspects that they just wanted to make sure that they caught all the trees in the area. He assured Ms. Redwing that the trees on her property may be listed as part of the inventory but that does not mean that they are on the list of trees to be cut down. Commissioner Riedel stated that he believes that Ms. Redwing’s main concern is that no one asked for her permission to mark her trees. Planning Director Darling stated that when staff is reviewing a development, it is important that they can see where the significant trees are on the adjacent properties as well so they can head off grading or other activity that may affect those trees. Ms. Redwing stated that she understands that but neither the City, the surveyor, or the developer came and asked permission to be on her property which is why she is upset. She stated that she paid to have her property surveyed which is when she noticed all the markings. She stated that they were all trespassing on her property. She explained that she is concerned about the buffer on her property and asked who would pay for future flooding damage on her property because of this development. She expressed concern that the City is allowing one wetland to be removed and asked about the elevation of the concrete pipe that is taking water from the wetland from the northwest corner to the south. Assistant City Engineer Baumann stated that the elevation of the concrete pipe will be the same elevation as the existing ditch. He stated that they will look very carefully at all of the drainage for the project to ensure post construction run off is not greater to any neighboring properties and that it is all managed on-site before leaving the property. He stated that the watershed district will also be involved to ensure that the bounce of the wetlands does not change by a significant amount. Kim Koehen, 6115 Seaman’s Drive, stated that she is concerned about the location of the road into the property in relation to her driveway and home because she is concerned about headlights at night. She asked if there was as street light proposed at the end of the cul de sac and noted that she would not be in favor of this addition because she can already see the street light at Park Lane. She noted that she appreciates that a sidewalk will be included in order to connect to Freeman Park. Chair Maddy noted that there are two proposed street lights. They are presented as Xcel decorative fixtures and asked if anyone on staff knew what those would look like. Planning Director Darling stated that they are a black metal fixture with a shorter pole. She noted that the fixture is a full cut off fixture and not the typical tall cobra style light. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 2021 Page 7 of 9 Chair Maddy asked whether the applicant or the City wanted the street lights. Planning Director Darling stated that she had asked the developer to show on the plans if they were going to propose any street lighting. Mr. Stoddard stated that they have proposed street lights and noted that one at each entrance and one in the middle is the normal trend. He stated that they can be down facing and understands the neighbor’s concerns with lighting. He noted that if it is not mandatory, they would like to dig into it more thoroughly and find out the recommendation from Public Works. He noted that he had recently put in this same kind of light in Excelsior with down facing lights that were only 10-12 feet high. He noted that the intent is not to make these very bright but to just to help show the contour of the roads, especially in the winter months. He stated that he wanted to apologize to Ms. Redwing that the surveyors were on her property without permission. Commissioner Gorham asked if there was anything in the Comprehensive Plan about the City’s preference for street lighting. Planning Director Darling stated that she does not recall and did not look it up prior to the meeting. Commissioner Gorham stated that, to him, this is a question of what they want the City streets to look like, in general, not just for this development. He stated that he feels the Commission should be consistent throughout the City with its lighting requirements. Commissioner Riedel stated that the applicant may be encouraged to plant trees to help address the concern raised by Ms. Koehen regarding headlights shining in her window. Robby Hill, 5930 Seaman’s Drive, asked if there would be a marked pedestrian crossing with a mandatory stop on Eureka or if the sidewalk would just run to the road. Assistant City Engineer Baumann stated that there will be a marked crosswalk in this location, but it will not be stop controlled. Mr. Hill stated that he agrees with the Commissioner who feels that the 6.5% COVID-19 increase as part of the traffic study is low and asked if that calculation applied to the metro area as a whole or if it was specifically for Highway 7 at this intersection. He stated that he feels it is important as to when the numbers were taken because the traffic traveling to and from Freeman Park should be considered. He noted that the traffic from the Minnetonka Country Club has also increased traffic in the area and if old data was used, that information should be revisited. Assistant City Engineer Baumann stated that he can do some checking on the COVID-19 compensator numbers from MnDot and see if the City would recommend any adjustments. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 8:16 P.M. Commissioner Riedel asked what the next phase would be if the City Council approves this application. Planning Director Darling stated that it will be a final plat and a PUD final plan but noted that it will only come before the Council, not the Planning Commission. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 2021 Page 8 of 9 Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the PUD Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat for “The Villas at Shorewood Village” located North of Highway 7 between Eureka Road and Seaman’s Drive, subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Gorham explained that the two things he is thinking about are the tree preservation plan and the traffic study. He stated that it appears as though there is still a lot of work to be done on the tree preservation plan and would like the Commission to discuss the possibility of this being completed before the Council meeting. He asked if the Commission felt comfortable that the language was already strong enough to make a decision on this issue. Commissioner Riedel asked if the Commission recommends approval and then the City Council approves it subject to conditions whether the conditions were more or less binding for the applicant. Planning Director Darling agreed that the conditions are binding. Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed that it will be up to staff to complete the process and make sure all the conditions are met. He stated that he believes Commissioner Gorham’s points are well taken and noted that importance of trees to the discussion. Commissioner Gorham stated that there appears to still be a lot of work that needs to be done on the tree preservation plan and this will be the last time the Commission sees this application if it moves to the City Council. He stated that he questions whether the Commission can feel comfortable sending this to the Council if the Commission will not be seeing it again. Chair Maddy asked if the proposed tree preservation plan meets the tree preservation policy. Planning Director Darling stated that it does meet the requirements, but does need some tweaking. Commissioner Gorham asked whether the applicant, with the number of conflicts that were found, will still meet the minimum requirements. Planning Director Darling noted that the applicant is over the minimum requirements. She stated that if the Commission would feel more comfortable, they could continue this item to the next meeting in order to allow time for the applicant to make some of the changes that have been discussed before it moves to the City Council. Commissioner Gorham stated that he has enough confidence in the City staff to guide this process through the rest of the steps, but wanted to make his concerns known. He stated that he wants to make sure the applicant knows that the Commission and the neighbors are concerned about the trees. He stated that regarding the traffic piece, he does not want this to be another Starbuck’s when there were a lot of complaints about the data coming from the summer months when the students were not there. He reiterated that he has a hard time believing the traffic study data is accurate even with the 6.5% increase due to COVID-19. He asked Assistant City Engineer Baumann to give the Council more clarity on this issue. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would also like to see some tweaking on the tree preservation at the end of the cul de sac to mitigate the headlight issues for the nearby resident. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 2021 Page 9 of 9 Mr. Stoddard stated that they will definitely put some more trees in that location and may ask for a bit of leniency to have some trees infringe or encroach on the right of way, if there are not utilities present. He stated that they are happy to brainstorm with staff on ways this issue can be adequately addressed. Commissioner Gorham asked if the plan was to definitely include two street lights. Mr. Stoddard stated that they do not have to have the street lights and before the Council meeting, he would like to have more discussion with staff to find out what the City’s philosophy is on street lights. He stated that they will not put lights in if the City does not want them. Chair Maddy stated that he does not believe the City has an actual policy and expressed his appreciation that Mr. Stoddard was willing to work with staff to try to figure out the best way to move forward. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report Council Liaison Callies reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s January 25, 2021, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated there will be a request for a lot line adjustment and a variance request for the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Gorham asked if anything had come out of the fire lane discussions. Commissioner Riedel explained that he had given a report to the Council on the meeting, but does not believe any action was taken. Planning Director Darling stated that she still needs a little more time to do some of the research that the Commission had requested and to work with Tonka Bay. She noted that the Council has not yet received the formal recommendation from the Park and Planning Commissions. 8. ADJOURNMENT Gault moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 2, 2021, at 8:33 P.M. Roll Call Vote – Ayes all. Motion passed 5/0. From: mike@melnychuks.com <mike@melnychuks.com> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 3:41 PM To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Amend Narrative Hi Marie, By way of this e-mail, please amend the narrative of our for our new home construction request to keep our existing boat house / shed and not remove it. Please let me know if this e-mail is a sufficient. Best regards, Mike Melnychuk 25360 Birch Bluff Road Shorewood, MN 55331 612-961-5742.