Loading...
MCC PAC Summary of Findings and RecommendationsFILE 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)