Loading...
07-07-15 CC WS MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD 24150 SMITHTOWN RD CITY COUNCIL STAFF WORK SESSION SOUTH LAKE PUBLIC TUESDAY, 1 MINUTES 1. Convene City Council -Staff Work Session Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 8:35 AM. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Zerby (departed at 11:45 A.M.); Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg and Woodruff; City Attorney Keane (arrived at 8:45 A.M.); City Administrator Joynes, City Clerk Panchyshyn, Finance Director DeJong, Planning Director Nielsen, and Director of Public Works Brown Absent: None Also Present: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Senior Principal John Shardlow B. Approve Agenda Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. Review and Purpose of Meeting Administrator Joynes explained this meeting is a culmination of a number of events that had occurred during the course of this year. During its June 8, 2015, meeting Council received and filed the Summary of Findings and Recommendations Report from the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Redevelopment Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) after about four months of deliberations. (A copy of the Report was included in the meeting packet.) That effort was led by John Shardlow, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Senior Principal, and other Stantec representatives. At that time Council requested staff schedule a Council work session to give Council an opportunity to discuss its concerns and provide suggestions about the issues, recommendations and findings presented by the PAC about the MCC redevelopment project. He noted that on July 6, 2015, Mattamy Homes submitted its application for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. He explained the City has a 10 -day period to review the application documents to determine if they are complete. Once staff has determined the documents are complete the City's time -to- respond clock begins. The City has a defined process for acting on the applications for the project. When Attorney Keane arrives he will speak about the legal options during that process. He explained that in January 2015 the City found out that the MCC property located at 24575 Smithtown Road had been sold and that Mattamy Homes, Inc. had obtained a conditional purchase agreement for the property. The property is more than 100 acres in size. That agreement gave Mattamy control of the property and allowed the firm to begin dealing with the City. It also solidified that the owners of the MCC property would not be dealing with anyone else during that time about the future of their property. When Mattamy submitted its pre - application for the Comp Plan amendment the City asked Mattamy to withhold that to allow the City and its residents to take a broader look at issues surrounding the MCC property and issues that might be created by the redevelopment of the property. At that time Council directed staff to solicit bids from consultants who would be able to assist the City with drawing residents into the early City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 2 of 22 part of the process. Council invited residents to become members of the PAC. The PAC met nine times. The PAC was to discuss how the proposed redevelopment would fit in with the City's zoning and ordinances as well as the impact on surrounding land. The outcome of those meetings was the Report mentioned earlier. He noted that the redevelopment project would be the largest ever done in the City. He explained during its January 29, 2015, and its April 9, 2015, Council and staff retreats Council discussed funding sources for long -term (5 — 10 years out) capital improvement projects Council thought were very important to the City. Council will meet in executive session on July 13 to discuss Southshore Center legal options. During the April retreat Council asked staff to identify a way to finance the purchase of the Center. General Fund reserves had been identified for use to purchase and improve the Center. Director DeJong had estimated there was about $533,000 in reserves above the 60 percent level in City's General Fund Balance Policy. That has increased since April. Council had directed staff to proceed with construction of the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension. Council recommended borrowing up to $1 million from the Sewer Fund to help fund the construction. Construction would start sometime in 2015 and it is expected to be completed in 2016. The intent is to use Tax Abatement for the MCC redevelopment to help pay back that loan. Tax Abatement is a tool provided by the Legislature that allows the City to capture tax value and use it for projects in the area close to the MCC property; projects that relate to the MCC project. Two examples are trail projects and roadway improvements. The connection to the MCC project is somewhat flexible. The City, the County and the School District can abate together. The Abatement would have to be approved by the elected bodies for each of those groups. That process will move forward along with the planning process for the MCC project. He stated after Council discusses the Comp Plan amendment application and the findings, recommendations and issues the PAC submitted Council should make its comments, concerns and recommendations known to the developer. Joynes stated he asked Mr. Shardlow to be present to hear Council's discussion about six issues identified by the PAC. He noted that although Council cannot make decisions during this meeting it can provide staff with direction. 3. Review of Financial Connections Administrator Joynes noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the 2015 — 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Any projects highlighted in yellow means that currently there is no funding source for them. He stated that in the next few years the City will need to decide how it is going to fund street improvements and noted there are options available to the City (e.g., bonding, borrowing, assessing). He then stated that it is his understanding that construction of the Galpin Lake Road trail segment is important to Council. That project has been pushed out to 2016 because of the lack of funding. The construction of a Strawberry Lane trail segment and the reconstruction of Strawberry Lane have been advanced to 2017 from 2019 in the CIP. There is no funding source for the three projects. The need for Strawberry Lane improvements and that trail has been exacerbated because of projects in the City of Chanhassen which will cause increased traffic and more activity around the Minnewashta Elementary School. The Tax Abatement that could be captured from the MCC project could help fund the three City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 3 of 22 projects because the Tax Abatement could be used for the Smithtown Road sidewalk extension and free up money for those projects. The Strawberry Lane improvements and trail would be beneficial to the School given the location and challenges. Hopefully, the School District will view that as a good reason to participate in Tax Abatement. He explained there are decisions that have to be made with regard to the redevelopment project, the trail system and approvals for them. Council also has to make decisions about Tax Abatement. If Council decides the City should participate then a public hearing has to be held on that. The School Board and Hennepin County also have to decide if they want to participate. If they do, they will have to hold public hearings and they will require a positive vote by those elected officials. He noted the project and funding decisions and the Tax Abatement decisions will be happening in concert over the next 6 — 8 months. Springsted has been asked to provide a timeline for the Abatement process. (A copy of that timeline was included in the meeting packet.) He stated there is a lot of work that will have to be done to ensure all things come together at the necessary junctures. Attorney Keane explained the formal land use application process is governed by Minnesota Statutes. There is a specific Statute that imposes time deadlines on a municipality for making decisions. The fundamental premise is once an application is filed the reviewing zoning authority has 10 days to determine if the application is complete in all respects. The authority must respond within 10 days if there are any deficiencies. If there are no deficiencies the 60 -day clock starts as of the day the application is filed. If there are deficiencies, the authority must enumerate those deficiencies in a written response so that the applicant can submit a complete application. Once the authority determines the application is complete the 60 -day clock starts. The municipality has 60 days under the basic rule to complete that application; that includes decisions by both the Planning Commission and City Council. There is a process for extending the 60 days an additional 60 days. It requires the municipality to send a written notice to the applicant stating the period of time has been extended up to an additional 60 days. Mayor Zerby asked what the criteria for doing that is. Attorney Keane responded there is none. Keane explained there is a fair amount of latitude. The municipality just has to give notice to the applicant as to whether additional meetings are required or additional deliberations are needed, for example. Zerby stated the Planning Commission meets once a month. If it meets once to discuss it and then a second time to make a recommendation before it goes to Council that could easily exceed 60 days. Keane stated that would be enough reason to extend the 60 days. Zerby stated for a project the size of the proposed redevelopment of the MCC property he asked why the City would not just extend the 60 days up front. Keane stated the City could advise the applicant that the schedule of meetings and process is going to require the City exercise the extension period. Keane explained Council is going to be required to approve or deny the application within the 60 day period or the extended timeframe. If Council does not take action within the required timeframe the application is deemed approved as submitted as a matter of law. Attorney Keane explained the application for the MCC redevelopment is a tiered application. The first request is for Concept Stage approval. Per the City's Ordinance there is a second application for Development Stage approval. That application is separate and discrete and it follows a similar timeline. Director Nielsen clarified there is a separate application for the formal Comp Plan amendment and that is done concurrent with the Concept Stage approval. Mayor Zerby asked what has to happen to extend the 60 -day time period. Attorney Keane stated the zoning authority can send the notice of extension. Administrator Joynes asked staff to explain the difference between a straight zoning development project and a planned unit development (PUD) project. Director Nielsen stated he would not recommend straight City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 4 of 22 zoning because there is too much risk with rezoning the property if something falls through with the project. Nielsen explained that following a PUD process is much safer for the City. Joynes then asked Nielsen to explain how the negotiation process works with the PUD approach. Nielsen explained there is not a lot of detail submitted for the Concept Stage approval. The Planning Commission has asked the developer to explain how $1 million houses work on lots less than 40,000 square feet in size. Once the developer receives Concept Stage approval they can move on with the Development Stage part of the PUD; that Stage is consistent with the preliminary plat. The Final Plan Stage / Final Plat is somewhat of a formality of that. Mayor Zerby stated there is an as -right process that means if the City changes the zoning of the MCC property to R -IC the developer would have the right to build what they want in compliance. He asked how many lots the developer could develop under the R -1C zoning. Director Nielsen responded one per 20,000 square feet. Nielsen explained that the road network and public right -of -way (ROW) have to be subtracted out of the square footage of the property and then the remaining acreage would be divided by 20,000. The current zoning is R -lA and that requires a minimum of 40,000 square foot lots. It would amount to about 116 units. Councilmember Sundberg stated the City had been provided suggestions about ordinance amendments related to renewable energy. She asked if it is too late to make those amendments and have them in place for the MCC project. Director Nielsen responded he did not think so and noted that as part of the PUD the City can negotiate those types of things in even if it is not part of the ordinance. He explained that was done with a couple of the City's environmental ordinances. Tree preservation originally started with a couple of PUDs. Wetland rules were revised to require a wetland buffer requirement. Mr. Shardlow stated he thought it important to keep the concept of win /win in mind when talking about the PUD process. He explained that with a PUD you start with the underlying zoning and what the property owner can do by right. Through the PUD the developer can request flexibility and the City can decide if its wants to grant flexibility. With the PUD the City has the opportunity to negotiate with the developer to incorporate aspects that are currently not in the City Ordinance. There does need to be an offsetting benefit to the developer. To a certain extent Mattamy has been talking about a slight increase in density which would be an offsetting benefit. Councilmember Sundberg stated during Council's June 22 meeting she asked that the alternative energy Code amendment recommendations from the alternative energy consultant be provided to Mattamy. She asked if that has happened. Administrator Joynes responded it has. Sundberg stated Council needs to decide which of the recommendations are priorities for the City. Administrator Joynes stated it is best to view the PUD process as a negotiation process. Virtually everything is on the table. Staff would like to learn what items Council wants to be on the negotiating table during this meeting. He clarified that does not mean the City will get all of them in the final agreement. Director Nielsen stated one of the recommendations from the energy consultant is to ensure that a provision prohibiting alternative energy is not included in the development agreement or the private covenant of the development. Councilmember Sundberg asked who represents the City during the negotiations. Director Nielsen stated it starts out with the Planning Commission with Council making the ultimate decision. Nielsen then stated if alternative energy is an issue for Council now is the time to make that known. Mayor Zerby stated staff will work with the developer and guide the process. City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 5 of 22 Sundberg stated from her perspective the PAC has indicated it would like to delve deeper into some of the issues it identified and some of its findings and recommendations. She asked if there is time to have the PAC do that. She also asked if it is necessary. Councilmember Siakel stated she thought a parallel issue to the MCC project is traffic. During Council's June 22, 2015, meeting it gave staff direction to come back with a proposal for establishing a group to discuss traffic. She continues to think that would be a good idea. She thought resolving issues related to the MCC project falls into the Planning Commission's and the Council's purview. Councilmember Sundberg stated Council and staff already know what the residents are going to say about traffic. Siakel stated traffic is related to more than just Country Club Road. Administrator Joynes explained the MCC redevelopment project is in a different phase now. The City was able to delay it for a short period while the City voluntarily sought advice. The project is now in an accountability phase for the City. The PAC has done what the Council asked it to do and it is now out of the process. The PAC can no longer have influence in the process. Council is now legally accountable for making decisions in a required timeframe. He noted there is little time to get done what needs to legally be done. Director Nielsen commented the Planning Commission was the core of the PAC. Councilmember Siakel asked why Council has not seen the developer's concept plan. Director Nielsen stated staff just received it at the end of the previous work day. Mr. Shardlow stated he has been told by the developer that the plan will be more similar to what the PAC recommended — there will be some age - targeted housing, there is a solution to the long cul -de -sac, and there is a large wetland. Councilmember Sundberg asked if there has been any feedback on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (SCRS) Area. Mr. Shardlow stated some property owners have contracted Mr. Parker with Mattamy and he has contacted some of them. Mr. Parker will not provide any concept for the Area but he may show how the redeveloped MCC property could relate to the Area. Mr. Parker had indicated he would be willing to work with the City if the City wants to take a more aggressive approach to the redevelopment of the SCRS Area. Sundberg asked if Council and staff should be thinking about that. Councilmember Woodruff suggested one of the desires the City should have is to have the developer install fiber optics to the houses. Mayor Zerby stated that from his perspective Council has discussed Item 5 on the agenda. Everyone concurred. He asked if Council should discuss the topics under Item 4. 4. Minnetonka Country Club Planning Advisory Committee Issues A. 'Traffic Mayor Zerby stated he agreed with the majority of the PAC members' recommendation that there should be improvements made to the Country Club Road (CCR) to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive collector route. He first clarified that he is not a traffic engineer before suggesting that CCR be made to be a serpentine shaped roadway. After researching traffic calming roadway designs it seems to him that with a 10- foot -wide easement from the developer that could be accomplished. After speaking with staff there is another traffic calming device which is a parkway (a divided roadway with plantings in the roadway). That could potentially be done with a 10 -foot easement. That would benefit the development as well as mitigate some of perceived traffic issues. That should be discussed with the developer. Zerby went on to state traffic is the number one issue throughout the City, He suggested Council and staff discuss traffic City wide. He would like to do something similar to what was done with the Trail City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 6 of 22 Committee and look at all different traffic pain points in the City. The end result should be a comprehensive plan for traffic. Director Nielsen stated the City does not have 50 feet of right- of-way (ROW) everywhere along CCR. As a result of the MCC redevelopment project the City will end up with its 50 feet. Mayor Zerby asked if the City would be able to make CCR a winding roadway or a divided roadway. Director Nielsen responded yes. Zerby stated it would be an opportunity to fix an issue in the City and noted that Councilmember Siakel had previously suggested some City issue(s) be resolved or mitigated as part of this project. Councilmember Labadie stated it has been brought up that at least one cul -de -sac in the proposed development is too long; it does not comply with regulations and it is a public safety risk. She asked if the City has roadway standards. Director Nielsen explained the City has standards for width, grade, and length of cul -de -sacs. The developer is aware that is an issue and that needs to be resolved. Councilmember Siakel stated in addition to improving CCR there needs to be a trail along side of it. She stated an outlet is proposed onto Smithtown Road and another onto Yellowstone Trail. She asked if two outlets are enough for the size of the development proposed. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has raised that issue. The developer is aware he should be looking at a lot so there can be another outlet onto Smithtown Road. He noted the intent is to have the traffic go out onto Smithtown Road and then on to County Road 19. Acquiring another property would. solve both the cul -de -sac length issue and the third access issue. Mr. Shardlow stated every one of those decisions has implications both ways. Mr. Shardlow then stated it is good to suggest things such as a curvilinear roadway. The group that studies traffic should be provided all of the options for improvements to CRR. The group, after studying the traffic, can make a set of recommendations. Mr. Shardlow noted there are existing traffic issues. He stated someone needs to determine what the relative traffic impacts from the redevelopment are versus those of a fully functioning golf course /country club. The amount of increase in traffic is quite small. He stated the impacts of closing CRR are quite significant. The PAC did not support doing that; it did think CCR should be improved. From his perspective there are a finite number of improvements that can be made. For example, there could be some modest changes in the alignment and some traffic calming at the intersection and possible along the corridor. He stated an issue will be encountered with the topography and the width of the right -of -way (ROW) on Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive. He suggested telling the residents that staff and Council are aware of concerns about traffic and that careful consideration will be given to it from a public safety standpoint and engineering standpoint. All options will be considered and Council will make the decisions that are the best knowing that it will never be perfect. Councilmember Siakel stated from her vantage point CCR and the other roadways in that collector route are the City's responsibility to fix. The City will work cooperatively with the developer during that process. Director Nielsen stated then when people are speaking of CCR it is really an abbreviation for the Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive collector route. He then stated CRR is the only one that the developer has the ability to do anything about. Mr. Shardlow explained that during the review of a development application there are offsite implications created by the development that give the City the authority to attach conditions to mitigate those impacts City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 7 of 22 albeit they are limited for this redevelopment based on the facts. The subdivision approval process, which the City will be considering, is what gives the City the right to get the additional ROW. Administrator Joynes noted there is only so much the developer can be asked to do outside of the MCC property. The City can get the ROW. But, improvements to CCR are not the developers concern. He stated Tax Abatement could be used for improvements but that competes with other uses of the Abatement. With regard to studying the corridor route, Mr. Shardlow stated he understands the benefits of having a City -wide traffic committee. But, he thought the City would be better served by having a very concise process with some residents, emergency response personnel, fire and police service personnel, and engineers to determine what improvements can be made to improve emergency response on that route. That should be done sooner versus later. From his perspective, that is not a multiple meeting discussion. Mayor Zerby stated there needs to be residents involved as well. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought Mr. Shardlow's suggestion makes sense while noting that she does not want to lose the traffic committee concept for a longer term process. Councilmember Siakel asked what it will take for staff to get that done quickly. Director Nielsen stated that during Council's July 13 meeting it can direct staff to do that and come up with an approach. Administrator Joynes stated he understands Council to be concerned about access from the MCC site, particularly as it relates to public safety and the length of a cul- de- sac(s). The developer's proposal has to address those issues. He also hears Council saying it wants to improve CCR, but that is outside of the developer's purview with the exception of providing additional ROW. Mayor Zerby noted that he wants staff to ensure that the City gets the amount of ROW it needs now for improvements as well as for potential future improvements. Mr. Shardlow noted the developer has already agreed to provide a trail paralleling CCR on its property. B. Drainage Mr. Shardlow stated the developer has proposed dedicating a very substantial percentage of the MCC property for permanent open space and to make that open space available to the City with trails. There are very few remaining wetlands and they tend to be smaller pockets. A long time ago a very substantial portion of the property had been wetlands but it was filled in a long time ago. He then stated there are two things for the City to consider; stormwater management and wetland /natural resource restoration. They need to work together. The developer's first proposal was to put buffers around the existing designated wetlands and then build stormwater management ponds. At the time the developer put its plan together it did not think there was an outlet because it shows up as a land - locked basin on Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) documents. Since then the developer has determined there is a culvert that can be improved that does provide an outlet. The developer had initially proposed ponding on the site that would be able to handle two back to back 100 -year rainfalls on site. A wetland expert looked at the site. Based on the expert's opinion of the history of the site people are convinced there had been a very large wetland on the southern portion of the site. The PAC presented the idea of restoring the wetland; it would be a larger wetland with a larger buffer around it. The idea was to have trails around the larger wetland. The developer has indicated it would do that if that is what the City wants. Or, it would do what it originally proposed if the City does not want the larger, restored wetland. For the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the MCWD restoring the large wetland is a bigger benefit than having a number of smaller wetlands. City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 8 of 22 Although Mr. Shardlow has not seen the plans, he thinks there is an opportunity for the City to work with the developer so the wetland can be a significant improvement to the quality of natural resources. And, that it should also look beautiful. Councilmember Sundberg explained that during a recent League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) meeting she attended a presenter indicated that over the last 10 years there have been 5 100 -year rainfalls. Municipalities have twentieth century infrastructures that will not meet the needs of twenty -first century rainfalls. Mr. Shardlow clarified that all of the technical work has not been done on assessing the restoration approach. He stated that from his perspective if there is dredging to recreate the wetland there will be a more positive impact on the surrounding properties. If enough dredging is done to get closer to the water table, that some of the drainage issues surrounding properties have could be mitigated as well. But, that needs to be wanted. He thought it could be achieved. The combination of those factors and the improved outlet would benefit the redevelopment project as well as surrounding properties that have drainage issues. Councilmember Woodruff asked if there is a list of drainage issues that could in some way be mitigated as part of this redevelopment. Director Nielsen stated that Director Brown has maintained a list over the years. Woodruff asked if the developer is aware them. Nielsen responded no. Director Brown explained that before the pre - application process the developer was made aware that there was an existing outlet. The developer televised the outlet to determine its condition. Staff made it clear that the MCC property as a whole is, for descriptive purposes, like a bowl. That outlet is the only working outlet that staff is aware of. The outlet goes all the way to Lake Minnewashta. The clay -tile pipe extends to the south, goes down and crosses Highway 7, to the Lake. The former owner of the MCC property had the significant sized pipe installed a number of years ago. The pipe is not in great condition. Staff had suggested developer conduct a full investigation before it decided to get involved. Staff believes the outlet needs to be restored. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought a large wetland would be better than a number of small ones. Woodruff asked who would be responsible for maintaining the large restored wetland. Director Nielsen stated that would be an issue. Director Brown clarified that if a wetland or stormwater basin serves just the development then it has been the City's practice that maintenance agreement required by the MCWD would be between the MCWD and the homeowners association (HOA). If it serves a more regional area where the City truly has an interest outside of the development then the City enters into the agreement with the MCWD. Director Nielsen noted that a HOA will be required for the proposed development. Mr. Shardlow stated that one of the first things the PAC members were asked to do was to identify every issue they had. The PAC produced a map indicating areas PAC members identified as having drainage problems. He explained there are rules regarding a developer's responsibilities when it comes to drainage. A developer cannot increase drainage offsite of their property to more than existing conditions. He expressed confidence the developer can go beyond that based on what has been proposed. Mr. Shardlow explained there is an opportunity to create a wetland bank. In the metropolitan area there is currently a shortage of wetlands. The developer has indicated it does not want to take time or take on the struggle of working with the MCWD to create that bank. But, the City could. That could roughly be a $1 million benefit to the City. The City could use the wetland credits to offset any other wetland impacts from any other City project or it could sell the credits. He encouraged Council to give that opportunity consideration. City CounciUStaff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 9 of 22 Councilmember Woodruff indicated he thought that would be an excellent approach to that wetland. He stated he thought there had been at least one situation where the City could have used the credits. Going forward, he thought it would be valuable to have the credits. Mr. Shardlow stated the extent to which it functions as a stormwater pond degrades its benefit from a wetland perspective. To what extent it would be a restored wetland and to what extent would it be for stormwater management would have to be negotiated with the MCWD. Director Brown clarified that wetlands and stormwater management are two different things. Councilmember Siakel stated lately Council has been discussing major stormwater issues that have surfaced years after developments were built. She asked what would have to be done to avoid future problems if there was only one large wetland. She stated if the developer has no interest in working with the MCWD to create a wetland bank she asked how the City would go about doing that. She then asked if the developer would restore the wetland and then the City would take over. Director Nielsen clarified it is not about working with just the MCWD. It also requires working with the Corps of Engineers and that is what the developer's hesitancy is mainly about. He explained the wetland bank process is cumbersome and takes a great deal of time. Mr. Shardlow explained the City can dictate how it would be built and graded based on direction from a. wetland banking expert. The developer would be okay with that. Mayor Zerby clarified the developer still needs to get a permit from the MCWD. Mr. Shardlow stated the MCWD has indicated it would be excited about restoring the wetland. Director Nielsen noted the wetland would not have to be restored because it existed before current regulations; it is called a non - regulatory wetland. Director Brown stated people get excited when there is discussion about restoring wetlands. He noted that stormwater management is the overriding issue. He explained that at the time the Boulder Bridge Pond was built it met a standard. Council and staff have been discussing how to remedy things to address a different standard. He stated a developer may clearly state that their stormwater pond will be able to handle a 100 -year rainfall; they will have met the standard. It does not necessarily mean there will be the positive outlet needed for the stormwater facility. Brown reiterated the existing pipe is in poor condition. He questioned how much authority the City has to encourage the developer to improve the pipe if it is currently not their intent to do so. He recommended the City take advantage of that even if it means the City become a partner in that to address other drainage issues. Mr. Shardlow noted it is his understanding that the developer intends to improve the pipe. Director Nielsen noted the developer has mentioned that to the MCWD and received a favorable reaction. Councilmember Woodruff asked how much of the pipe is under the control of the developer, how much is the City's responsibility, and how much is Carver County's responsibility and so on. Director Nielsen stated based on the investigation to date the pipe comes out of the MCC property and goes under Yellowstone Trail and under Pleasant Avenue. That is where it is in poor shape. The pipe south of Highway 7 is in very good condition. He noted the MCWD has indicated the pipe can be restored to its current capacity; a larger pipe cannot be installed. He thought it was a 24- inch - diameter pipe. City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 10 of 22 Mr. Shardlow stated there are many technical issues that have to be addressed before a drainage solution can be agreed upon. He then stated from an existing condition perspective a very substantial percentage of the southern part of the site is soils that do not drain well. A lot of those soils will have to be removed from the site and after that is done the basin will be able to hold more water. Councilmember Labadie asked what the distinction is between a wetland and a stormwater pond. Director Brown explained that public ROWs along roadways and storm sewers will empty into a stormwater facility before it would enter a wetland The intent is not to have roadway ROWs drain directly into wetlands. Director Brown explained stormwater from some of County Road 19 flows through a couple of treatment areas before it flows into the Gideon Glen wetland. Mr. Shardlow stated there would be a buffer of native plants around the wetland; plants with deep roots if possible. They would be a conduit for the water to go deep into the ground and phosphorous and so forth would be removed. Things like the types of plants and width of the buffer are some of the design considerations. He commented that a larger wetland would be easier to maintain. Councilmember Woodruff stated the restored wetland could be something similar to Silver Lake which is a combination of stormwater retention and wetland. Director Brown stated a larger wetland body is far more effective and of greater benefit. Maintenance of a larger wetland is more complicated and costly. It is likely that would not have to be done over the next 20 years. Councilmember Woodruff stated one of the problems with small NURP (Nationwide Urban Runoff Program) ponds is they will be in someone's back yard. They end up being a convenient place to dump yard clippings. The larger wetland would be less convenient to dump clippings into. Mr. Shardlow clarified that the size of the large wetland and the size of the buffer are yet to be determined. Councilmember Siakel stated it would be helpful to her if someone could provide her with some idea of the maintenance requirements. Mayor Zerby stated it sounds like maintenance of the stormwater retention ponds or wetlands is the major issue with drainage. Administrator Joynes stated he understands Council to be in support of restoring the larger wetland. He noted there will be issues that are technical in nature that will be part of the negotiations with the developer. He stated trails will be an integral part of a larger pond. Public trails will require the City to have ownership and future maintenance of that property. Councilmember Woodruff commented that wetlands are often not very wet. He asked that on the graphic depicting the larger wetland that the wetland be a color other than blue because people could interpret that to mean a lake. Councilmember Sundberg noted that her property backs up to a wetland and that there are times where she can walk a long way out onto the wetland. C. Density — Housing 'Types, Costs Mayor Zerby stated that early on in discussions about the proposed redevelopment of the MCC property Director Nielsen spoke about one -third acre lots with houses quite close to each other. The lots would City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 11 of 22 have large back yards. The topic of amenities (e.g.; swimming pools or large backyard patios) came up. He asked how those amenities could be accommodated with the type of lots proposed. Director Nielsen noted the R -C District does not accommodate 18,000 square foot lots. That has to be negotiated. He stated the developer provided the PAC a sketch of how a $1 million house could fit on the size lots proposed. There is the question about what happens, for example, three years from now when owners of the new properties want to add a deck or pool or patio but regulations don't allow that without a variance. That will be established during the PUD process. The covenants will stipulate what can and cannot be done on the lots. Mr. Shardlow stated that is part of the purchase documents the future owner reviews and part of the covenants they sign off on. That gives the City the authority to enforce the PUD. Mayor Zerby stated with the increase in the size of the wetland and the smaller lots he asked if the developer will be able to adhere to the City's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. Director Nielsen stated a lot of the trees there were not natural. They were planted, He noted that many of the trees are ash trees so there is question as to whether or not they should be preserved because of the Emerald Ash Borer problem. Councilmember Siakel stated that makes reforestation more important. Zerby stated the property was a dairy farm before it was a golf course and country club property. In response to a comment from Councilmember Siakel, Director Nielsen stated the indication has been the density will be higher than 120 houses. Nielsen explained the original plan showed 121. The developer has indicated there will be more units now because of the age - targeted units that will be built. Siakel stated Council has discussed residents' desires to remain in the community as they age in a place they can afford. There has also been discussion about having age - targeted housing in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (SCRS) Area and where Badger Park is. She questioned how much need there is for that type of housing and if it is needed as part of the MCC redevelopment project. She asked what age- targeted housing means. Director Nielsen clarified that age- targeted housing in not senior housing. He explained the PAC discussed having senior housing where Badger Park is and relocating some of the Park's amenities to the MCC redeveloped site. The PAC recommended keeping the Park amenities together. The SCRS Report recommends senior housing in the SCRS Area on the northwest quadrant as well as some commercial. That housing would be different than what the developer is proposing for the MCC site. The developer has indicated the age - targeted housing would be single - family, detached, primarily single level housing at a little lower price point. He noted the City does not give any breaks for age - targeted housing; it is considered single- family housing. It is a housing style. He explained if it was age - restricted the developer would get a break on, for example, park dedication fees and utility fees. The units would be counted as one half. Mr. Shardlow clarified a property owner has rights and the City has limited tools for telling a developer what they can and cannot do to the property. The City has authority through its Zoning Code. He explained the MCC property has always been privately owned and the City was not given an opportunity to purchase it. It was offered to a select group of developers through a private transaction. Mattamy won the rights to develop the property. Mattamy now has control of the property and it has the same rights as any private property owner would. The City has no authority to tell Mattamy what the price points for the housing should be. As long as Mattamy satisfies the zoning requirements the price point of the proposed housing is irrelevant. He clarified that does not mean the PAC should not have raised housing types and costs as an issue. He noted the PAC discussed that Shorewood is an aging in place community from a demographics standpoint. He stated after the developer heard PAC discussions it came back with an additional housing style it could build; its age- targeted units. City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 12 of 22 Mattamy has indicated that most of the buyers of its properties are 55 years of age or older. Most of those buyers in the Shorewood community would be people who would be interested in going to a warmer climate during the winter. This housing type would be protected by an association and they could know their homes were protected when they were gone. He expressed the age- targeted units will sell well not withstanding price point. He stated if the City truly wants to offer workforce housing that requires a $200,000 subsidy per unit. He noted that Mattamy paid over $15 million dollars for the property; it will need to sell 84 or 85 houses before it sees black ink. He stated the reason Mattamy stated it would develop some age - targeted housing was because its CEO in Canada looked at the MindMixer site and saw there was a desire for housing diversity he proposed offering age- targeted housing. He noted that he thought it would be a mistake not to offer some diversity of housing types as part of the project. Councilmember Labadie stated Mattamy has proposed two areas of age- targeted housing but no senior housing. She questioned why one area would not be senior housing. Director Nielsen clarified that Mattamy does not build multi - story, multi - family units. He stated that a developer approached Mattamy about buying a corner of the site and building a three or four story cooperative there. Mattamy did not want that at the entrance to its development. Administrator Joynes stated he thought the price point was $400,000 — $600,000 for the age - targeted units. Councilmember Labadie asked if the developer has given any indication of its construction timetable. Director Nielsen responded four to five years. Labadie then asked if the age- targeted units will be constructed at the end. Nielsen stated he does not know and explained the concept plan will have to indicate the phasing of the project. Mr. Shardlow stated he thought the developer would phase from east to west because most of the time a developer wants to show most of its offerings to the market place. Mayor Zerby stated if the age - targeted housing started to increase in height for a multi -unit structure he would have concerns about height. Councilmember Sundberg stated she likes the idea of age- targeted units on the site. She then stated from her perspective it was somewhat reassuring to hear that Mattamy turned down another developer's request for the corner of the property in order to build a higher structure. She takes that to mean Mattamy will not do anything to diminish the value of its core investment. Administrator Joynes summarized the density issues. He heard Council say through the PUD process details of the lots and the use of the lots will be solidified for the MCC property and that it favors some age - targeted units on the site. The developer believes the market supports that. Council understands the age - targeted classification does not imply age - restricted. Councilmember Woodruff suggested that when the age - targeted housing is discussed it should be noted that housing will be single- family detached. A break was taken from 10:15 —10:31 A.M. Pa Mr. Shardlow explained from the very beginning Council was committed to trails and trails showed up in the issues PAC members raised. Having open space accessible to the public on the redeveloped MCC site was something that was flagged from the very beginning. Tax Abatement resources produced from the MCC project may be used to pay for links of key trails. The developer went into the project with the understanding that there would not be public trails going through property owners' back yards. Yet, the City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 13 of 22 developer recognized the need for a network of trails that provided public access to the entire property (e.g.; the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension). Mr. Shardlow stated there may be an opportunity to make pedestrian improvements to CCR and Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection with the extended sidewalk. There is also an opportunity to do some streetscaping and put in some traffic calming. When that intersection was redesigned in the 1990s the intent was to have traffic going to Highway 7 stay on County Road 19. Because of the limited right -of -way (ROW) and the irregularly shaped ROW along CRR the idea of having a trail segment along CCR on the MCC property was presented. There would be trees and /or some type of brush that would separate the pedestrians and bicyclist from the roadway. Mayor Zerby asked if there has been a decision about how wide the proposed trail along CCR would be or what type it would be. Director Nielsen stated that has to be decided. Nielsen explained that the recently constructed trails do not qualify as a trail with Hennepin County or the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) because they are only six feet wide. If the intent is for pedestrians and bicyclists to use the new trail then the trail needs to be a minimum of eight feet wide. Zerby noted he has spoken with representatives from Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) and they have indicated they have been looking at the intersection and possibly creating an alternate route from the trail along Smithtown Road down to Timber Lane and through the public safety / public works area. Councilmember Siakel asked if that is in response to the TRPD not supporting a pedestrian bridge over Country Road 19 for the LRT Trail. Zerby noted the TRPD is looking at ways to enhance that crossing including some traffic calming device. Director Nielsen noted the Trail Plan includes a proposed trail from the County Road 19 intersection down 19 connecting with Excelsior. Zerby noted Excelsior extended its sidewalk to the community gardens on the south side of the roadway. Councilmember Sundberg questioned the value of making the trail eight feet wide to accommodate bicyclists because of the short length of the trail along CCR. Mr. Shardlow stated Mattamy's market research has indicted trails are at the top of amenities that people want. The question is if they will be public or private. Administrator Joynes stated who maintains public trails will be part of the negotiations for the PUD. Director Nielsen noted that if trails go through there they will be constructed before houses are constructed. Councilmember Siakel stated she has assumes the trails would be around the development and not through it. Director Nielsen stated at a minimum the PAC recommended a trail along CCR on the MCC property. If Council has interest in there being a perimeter trail then Council has to provide that direction. Siakel noted that she would like there to be a perimeter trail. Councilmember Sundberg concurred. Administrator Joynes stated many times perimeter trails are built around wetlands. Nielsen stated the developer's first plan showed perimeter trails. Joynes stated the perimeter trail was along the edge of the MCC property; not around the wetland. Director Brown stated if the City ends up owning the wetland a sidewalk around the wetland would provide the City with a way to access the wetland for maintenance. He then stated when there are people moving around the wetland there needs to be some type of protection to keep people from throwing things into the wetland. Mr. Shardlow stated there may be some parts of the area down in the open space where the developer may want to propose woodchips and a walkout to a bird viewing location, for example. Mr. Shardlow noted when there is asphalt there is impervious surface and that is on the negative side when trying to do wetland restoration. He stated it will be a balance of access, mobility and natural preservation. He clarified he wanted to forewarn Council that the developer may want to have some trails in the open space that are not asphalt. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 14 of 22 Councilmember Sundberg stated if the trails will encourage more bicyclists to use them there is the issue of safety. The bicyclists will be accessing other roadways. Director Nielsen stated a six- foot -wide trail is theoretically for pedestrians. But, bicyclists (neighborhood children) will still use it. Bicyclists traveling at a higher speed don't typically use that size of trail. Sundberg clarified her concern is getting to the trail from neighborhood roadways. Mr. Shardlow stated the direction for trail planning is separation of pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicles. Mayor Zerby noted that he thought having a trail along side of CRR is a good idea. If there is a way to get pedestrians and/or bicyclist to Excelsior safely, that is a good idea. He stated there will be a grocery store people can bike to and that would reduce carbon emissions. He then stated if there were to be a public trail around the wetland there are issues about accessing it. Mr. Shardlow stated he would never recommend that configuration. Councilmember Siakel stated having a perimeter trail does not necessitate a trail around the wetland. Councilmember Sundberg recommended consideration be given to accommodate bicyclists more safely when upgrading City roadways. Councilmember Siakel stated where County Road 19 and Smithtown Road and CRR come together she suggested safe trail crossings be put in place. Director Nielsen stated there is a concept for that from the County Road Corridor Study which is adopted in the Comp Plan. Mayor Zerby stated there has been discussion about hopefully having senior housing on the northwest quadrant of the SCRS Area. That needs to be kept in mind with any trail connection there. Councilmember Woodruff asked if trails open to the public would be maintained by the City. Administrator Joynes stated that is generally the outcome of negotiations. Councilmember Labadie stated there needs to be a way to get residents out of the proposed development and on to the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension safely. Once children get there they can go to the elementary school safely; something that cannot be done today. Director Nielsen stated that is why a second access onto Smithtown Road is important. Administrator Joynes summarized the discussion on trails. He stated he understands Council to want a perimeter trail. There is concurrence that the trail along CCR should be located on the MCC property with some green space between the roadway and the trail. That trail will be public and therefore maintained by the City. He commented there may be a need to make decisions about internal trails depending on what the developer proposes. Mr. Shardlow stated it is his understanding that the developer thinks it can spade move a fair number of evergreen trees currently growing on the MCC property. They could possibly replace the buckthorn between the perimeter trail and CCR. E. Public Access to Open Space Mr. Shardlow stated he thought the topic of public access to open space has already been discussed. He explained that from the very beginning the developer has been talking about a clustered development and having 55 — 60 acres of permanently provided open space. There is an outstanding question about whether City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 15 of 22 or not the developer gets park dedication credit for that. The developer has stated that the development would not be a gated community. Mayor Zerby stated a lot of the open space is combined into a wetland and therefore he does not know how much access there will be to that. Administrator Joynes stated on the MindMixer website a number of comments have been posted about there being some type of golf course on the redeveloped site. The PAC discussed that quite extensively. There would be major issues associated with doing that. For example, it would eliminate the wetland possibility and likely the trail possibilities. The PAC was provided information about the economics of having a golf course and the difficulty in maintaining it. He noted that he has been involved with public golf courses in the past and they are generally not operationally viable without major subsidies from cities. Mr. Shardlow noted the developer is not proposing a golf course. Mayor Zerby stated the City of Orono's golf course is not profitable and it requires subsidies. He does not think residents would want to do that. F. Chance to do Something Cool — Mini Town Center Mr. Shardlow stated from the very beginning and more strongly at the end the PAC discussed that this is the opportunity for the City to do something significant around the Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection. He explained that when he asked PAC members for examples sometimes the responses were the Excelsior and Grand area or places like that. He told members that the area around Excelsior and Grand has density of 100 units per acre. Shorewood has prided itself on being relatively low density. He then stated if the City wanted to relocate the Badger Park ballfield to the MCC property there would be a tradeoff. There would no longer be an opportunity for wetland restoration. The PAC did strongly support redeveloping the northwest quadrant of the SCRS Area and around the intersection. It was basically a mandate from the PAC that this is the time to be thinking about all of that coming together. But, it was outside of the PAC's purview. From his vantage point, there is a real traffic intensive use on the Lucky Station site. If the City were to convert that to a less traffic intensive use (e.g.; senior housing) the curb cuts in the intersection could be eliminated. It would provide an opportunity to do a lot of streetscape landscaping around the SCRS Area. It could eventually become a regional trail location. Mr. Shardlow noted that there are developers waiting in the wings to discuss a variety of senior housing types and styles. He encouraged them to let the PAC process come to an end and let the developer submit the application for the MCC property. After that it would be the appropriate time to talk about it. He noted that there were different discussions about the residential area along Smithtown Road and the commercial areas in the northwest quadrant and the southwest quadrant of the SCRS Area. Councilmember Sundberg stated parking needs have to be considered early on in any discussions about redevelopment. Mr. Shardlow stated from his perspective the City has been "dealt a really good hand ". The proposal being offered is $100 — $150 million of new investment into the community and it represents a tremendous amount of total economic benefit. There will be a lot of spending power that comes along with the new housing. Mayor Zerby stated it would be nice to memorialize that the MCC property because it had a golf course on it for 100 years. He then stated it would be nice to make the Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection standout for Shorewood and be something people could identify with. City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 16 of 22 Councilmember Sundberg stated it is her understanding that Mattamy is not purchasing the residential property on a corner next to the MCC property. At one time that property was a stage coach stop. Councilmember Siakel stated she does not envision Shorewood ever having a so called downtown area. But, having something like a trail stop in the SCRS Area could give the Area some identity. Councilmember Sundberg agreed that there would not be downtown area in Shorewood. Mr. Shardlow stated. Shorewood has Badger Park and plans to improve the Park and there is the Southshore Center. The City has the opportunity to do new development in the SCRS Area. Director Nielsen stated what is being discussed is all included in the SCRS Report and noted that it was an intentional decision not to share that Report with the PAC. He then stated the Country Road 19 Corridor Study talks about landscape treatment all along that Area. Administrator Joynes stated if /when the Mattamy project is approved there will be more interest from developers in redeveloping the SCRS Area. Any developer will likely want some type of subsidy for building certain types of housing. Council will have to decide how much it wants the City to be a financially active player in that. Councilmember Sundberg asked if there would be any interest in. eliminating Badger Park entirely or expanding some other City -owned park if a developer wanted that parcel of land. Director Nielsen stated the PAC advised keeping Badger Park in place. The Park Commission has not wanted to eliminate Badger Park. Mayor Zerby stated he thought Badger Park will become more important to the Community because of the MCC project. Councilmember Siakel stated she can support keeping a park where Badger Park is. It should tie into the Southshore Center. She then stated it is her understanding that there is a developer who has expressed some interest in the Lucky's corner of the SCRS Area. That may change the use of Badger Park. She went on to state that she would like to gain a better understanding of how all of the City's parks are being used and specifically Freeman Park and the revenues earned from sports teams using the Parks. Maybe a lacrosse field could be created in Freeman Park instead of Badger Park. And, maybe the Tonka United Soccer Association has outgrown Freeman Park. She commented she could envision Badger Park being more of a playground with a common area for families. Councilmember Labadie stated she does not know how Badger Park could support the type of parking needs a lacrosse association is going to generate. She thought locating it in Freeman Park would be a better alternative. Councilmember Sundberg stated there may be a better use for a portion of the Badger Park land. G. Other Councilmember Sundberg stated the Alternative Energy Study consultants have provided the City with recommended Zoning Code amendments relative to private sector solar development. They also provided language that could be added to the PUD ordinance. She asked if it would be appropriate for Council to look at the recommendations and decide which amendments it may want to consider. She stated she thought it prudent to do that soon before the MCC PUD negotiation process is too far along. Mayor Zerby stated he likes solar energy but he does not want to cut trees down in order to be able to put up solar panels. He does agree the recommended ordinance amendments be discussed soon. City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 17 of 22 Councilmember Woodruff stated the City is involved with the GreenStep Cities Program. As part of that Program there are guidelines for what to do with new development. He has not heard staff indicate that it has reviewed the guidelines to determine if what Mattamy is proposing for the MCC property in any way fits with those guidelines. Director Nielsen noted that the consultants doing the Alternative Energy Study wrote a good share of the GreenStep Cities guidelines. Woodruff clarified he was talking about more than just solar guidelines (e.g.; landscaping, trees, sidewalks, etc.). Councilmember Sundberg concurred with doing that and clarified she is not only concerned about solar energy. She is thinking about the broader scope of a green community. Administrator Joynes mentioned there had been a previous recommendation to ensure the homes are broadband ready. Mayor Zerby clarified broad fiber ready. Councilmember Siakel suggested burying the electrical power lines. Mayor Zerby stated a member of the PAC asked that the site be pollinator friendly but he is not sure how the City can make that happen. Director Nielsen stated because 60 percent of the site will be open space that will help make it pollinator friendly. Attorney Keane explained that being Mattamy submitted an application to the City on July 6, 2015, the 60 -day clock has started to run unless staff says the application is incomplete. The luxury of the leisurely community input pace for the last five months has to change to an overdrive pace now. Going forward, Council and staff have to be very mindful of the schedule. People have to be prepared for meetings and prepared to make decisions. As soon as the application was filed the formal record started and that record stays open until there is final action by Council. He reminded. Council that the consideration of the applications is something that takes place on the record. He stated if residents have comments and concerns about the project they should bring them to Planning Commission meetings or to Council meetings or submit them in writing to the City for distribution to Councilmembers and Commissioners. He noted off the record communication is discouraged. Attorney Keane then explained there are still ongoing struggles within the Witrak family. Ms. Bonnie Witrak, who had been/is a minority shareholder of the MCC property, has been actively involved in court proceedings. Administrator Joynes explained that staff has had three or four meetings with Ms. Witrak and her associates which included developers, public relations people, and local architects. He noted if Ms. Witrak gains control of the property the PUD process would be quite lengthy; maybe a year or two. Administrator Joynes reiterated that Council and staff have to be very cognizant of time requirements and being prepared for meetings and being prepared to make decisions. There are a number of related decisions and tangential projects that have to be coordinated with the MCC project. He stated he thought that could be accomplished but there is the possibility that something could get sidetracked. 5. Decision Process Timeline Director Nielsen explained that during Council's June 22, 2015, he walked through a graphic timeline illustrating the various steps in City's development review process for the Comp Plan amendment process and the planned unit development (PUD) process for MCC project. (A copy of that same graphic was included in the packet.) The first scenario shows the shortest amount of time in which the process could be completed; it goes by the 60 -day rule. The second scenario is the longest amount of time in which the process could be completed; it shows using the 120 days allowed. He thought reality will be somewhere in between. He clarified that once the Concept Stage plans (the formal Comprehensive Plan amendment and PUD) is approved there is no way to know how long it will take the developer to submit plans for the Development Stage. That same thing applies for between approval of the Development Stage plans and preliminary plat and the submittal of Final Plan Stage. An application is submitted for each of the stages City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 18 of 22 in the PUD process — the Concept Stage, the Development Stage and the Final Plan. Stage. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing for the Concept Stage of the PUD process and the Development Stage of the PUD process (this stage is essentially the review of the preliminary plat). The Final Plan Stage of the PUD process involves finalizing the details approved during the Concept and Development Stages in legal documents (e.g.; the final plat and the development agreement). Nielsen noted that during this discussion so far staff has received very good direction and prioritization from Council related to the MCC project. Mayor Zerby stated he hoped Council would have a public hearing as well as part of its PUD review process. Director Nielsen asked Zerby if he wanted that for the Concept Stage or the Development Stage. Zerby stated he wanted it for both the Concept Stage and the Development Stage. Councilmember Siakel asked if there was a need for two hearings for those two Stages. Zerby stated based on his experience there are always residents who do not weigh in during the Commission's public hearings and want to be heard during Council meetings. Therefore, he wants to provide them with an opportunity to be heard. Siakel stated she could support a Council public hearing for the Concept Stage but she did not favor that for the Development Stage because the Planning Commission is fairly far along in the process by then. Siakel noted that she does think it is important for the public to have opportunities to comment. Councilmember Woodruff stated during the Council discussion for the Summit Woods development Concept Stage there were a. lot of questions from residents that were left unanswered because the details were not known at that time. The public was demanding answers that could not be answered until after the plans for the Development Stage were submitted. He then stated if Council is to hold a public hearing as well it should be held for the Development Stage. Attorney Keane noted there is a mandatory public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. Mayor Zerby stated he understands Council holding a public hearing is optional and he thought Council should take advantage of that because of the size of the project. Councilmember Woodruff asked Director Nielsen if Council held public hearings for the CUB Foods project. Director Nielsen explained for the CUB project there was an extraordinary mailing list and that will be done for the MCC project. Nielsen stated it is his recollection that only the required public hearings were held. Yet, there were still a lot of public comments heard along the way. Mr. Shardlow stated there is a need for the public to be informed and to be able to share their opinions. And, there is also the public hearing. He thought there could be value in having a. public informational meeting about the redevelopment of the MCC property. That meeting could be co- hosted by the PAC, the developer and staff. That is a more effective way of providing residents with information. Many times people come to a public hearing with a prepared statement without having heard all of the facts. Public hearings are difficult forums for people to become informed and gain an understanding. Councilmember Siakel and Councilmember Sundberg both stated they liked that idea. Councilmember Woodruff stated that is similar with what is being done for trails by having open houses. Mr. Shardlow stated it could be an extended neighborhood meeting; because of all of the information already generated there is a lot more to share with people. Mr. Shardlow clarified that the PAC meetings were not neighborhood meetings. Those meetings were focused on those 23 members. The public was not excluded from those meetings, but they were not intended to be a forum for the public. There were some others that came and were frustrated because they could not participate exactly the same way the PAC members could. People were told that the PAC City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 19 of 22 process would not take away from the normal public input process. That PAC was somewhat like a community focus group. Mayor Zerby stated he thought the open house format for an informational meeting is a good idea if it is done right. But, there is still no reason for Council not to have a public hearing. Councilmember Sundberg again stated she supports having an informational meeting for the public provided it is well done. And, the information needs to be presented in a PowerPoint format at a minimum. Councilmember Siakel stated the open houses for trails have been very well received and very well organized. Councilmember Sundberg asked who will orchestrate the informational meeting. Siakel and Mayor Zerby responded staff. Sundberg stated staff already has a full workload. Sundberg asked if staff thought it can put on a well prepared informational session. Administrator Joynes responded it could. Councilmember Siakel noted she does not support holding a public hearing at the Council level. She stated from her perspective residents will have had more than enough opportunities to have been heard and to have gotten information through the MindMixer website, the City newsletter and website, a public informational meeting and two Planning Commission public hearings. Councilmember Labadie noted she agrees with Siakel's comments. She stated she thought that for the Summit Woods project a group of citizens was very well organized and spoken. Yet, it was the same people coming before the Planning Commission and Council each time the project was being discussed expressing the same concerns. She thought that people had. more than enough opportunity to express their concerns during the Planning Commission hearings. Councilmember Woodruff stated role of the Planning Commission is defined by State Statute for this process. He cautioned against circumventing that process by offering the public a forum to go directly to Council rather than to the Commission. He stated to some extent that was done with the Summit Woods project. Council allowed itself to become, to some degree, a way to bypass the Planning Commission process. He encouraged Council not to do that for the MCC project. He stated there is great legal peril if Council allows that. He commented the Commission can decide to continue a public hearing to another meeting for cause. He reminded Council the Commission can meet more than once a month. Director Nielsen noted the Commissioners had been asked to reserve the third Tuesday of the month in case there is a need for a second meeting. Mayor Zerby respectfully excused himself from the work session at 11:45 A.M. because he had another meeting to go to. Acting Mayor Siakel assumed control of the meeting. Administrator Joynes stated four members of Council supported Council not having a public hearing. Mr. Shardlow stated from his perspective one of the things that would be helpful for the public to hear about the issues framed, the recommendations from the PAC and those things Council concurs with. The fact that the developer has agreed to comply with the issues should be reassuring to people. If they don't have any of that information they will come at this project wondering why there is not going to be a nine- hole golf course. Administrator Joynes clarified that in order for staff to handle the open house informational meeting there will be a need for some help from Mr. Shardlow and from engineering to put the documentation together. He stated because the contract with Stantec ended after Mr. Shardlow's presentation to Council during its June 22 meeting he intends to bring forward a change order to that contract based on an hourly rate for Council's consideration during its July 13 meeting for items like this. Councilmember Sundberg stated City Council/Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 20 of 22 that Mr. Shardlow is perfect for that. Sundberg commented that having done similar things being well prepared for an open house style informational meeting takes a lot of work. Director DeJong clarified the City has to pay for that; the developer's responsibility for that involvement ended after the June 22 presentation. Attorney Keane stated that the developer is paying for everything. Attorney Keane explained the developer was presented with a pre - application development agreement that obligates the developer to reimburse the City for all expenses incurred by the City in processing this application. But not for the developer, the City would not be incurring the expenses. That has been clearly explained to the developer and they are contractually obligated to make those reimbursements. Mr. Shardlow stated there is a point when broader traffic considerations would not be the developer's financial responsibility. Redevelopment work around the intersection not related to the MCC redevelopment is also a different story. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the agreement with the developer is structured such that in the remote possibility that Ms. Witrak prevails in her legal pursuit the City would have had the right to be reimbursed. Attorney Keane stated absolutely. Administrator Joynes stated the developer has been billed for Stantec's time through the June 22 presentation. 6. Abatement Process Timeline Administrator Joynes explained the meeting packet contains a copy of a Tax Abatement timeline that staff and Springsted representatives put together. The timeline shows that by mid -July the City needs to have had a discussion with representatives from the Minnetonka School District to try and get some indication as to whether or not the District wants to participate in the Abatement. In the past Council and staff have talked about Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Labadie putting together a strategy for approaching the District based on the connections they each have. Springsted, Zerby, Labadie and staff need to meet soon to discuss how things should be phrased during discussions with District representatives. If the City participates in the Abatement on its own, that would result in there being about $1 million that can be used for other projects. If the District decides to also participate to the full extent, that would result in about another $2 million. The District does not need to be convinced that all of that is appropriate, but it does need to be convinced that doing some of the projects would benefit the Minnewashta. Elementary School. The City will have to make formal presentations to the School Board. The timeline shows a lot of notification and publication requirements to establish the Abatement districts. All of the activities on the timeline culminate on October 12 when Council holds the public hearing on Tax Abatement and adopts a resolution establishing the Abatement area. The public hearing is required by law. During the hearing the City will present what it is doing and why it is doing it. Joynes noted that because there are other decisions makers involved in the Abatement process the timeline may have to be adjusted. Councilmember Labadie asked Administrator Joynes if he anticipates that she, Mayor Zerby and staff would go before the School Board on August 13. Joynes responded no. Administrator Joynes recommended that staff, Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Labadie first meet with Minnewashta Elementary School representatives to try and get support for Abatement participation at the City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 21 of 22 School level before going before the Board. Labadie stated it would be important to get the Principal of the Elementary School on board and have her participate in a presentation to the Board. Councilmember Woodruff suggested staff tell Council what decisions it needs to make about projects and how to fund them in the short term with the understanding that eventually the project will be paid for with Tax Abatement resources if the MCC redevelopment project continues to move forward. Administrator Joynes stated staff is working on that and noted that a document depicting some of that was provided to Council for the April 9, 2015, Council and staff retreat and it was included in the meeting packet for this work session. Administrator Joynes explained money from Tax Abatement does not come all at once; taxes come in over the course of years. But, there are bonding mechanisms that can be used in anticipation of Tax Abatement resources to get the money to the City upfront in order to do projects. The bonds would be paid back with the Abatements. That is something that Springsted and Director DeJong will have to work out. Director DeJong noted the duration of the Abatement gets shortened if the City, School District and Hennepin County all participate in the Abatement. The length can be up to 20 years if only two participate and 12 — 15 years if all three do. The Abatement amounts provided to Council are the maximum ball park figures. The amounts will be lower if all three participate. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the dollars flow out of the taxing area or is net of cost and interest and so forth. Director Nielsen responded that is dollars that flow out of the taxing area. Woodruff stated the amounts presented will have to be reduced by the amount to service the debt. Acting Mayor Siakel asked if the Abatement area is just the MCC property or could it extend down to Strawberry Lane. Director Nielsen stated that what staff and Springsted have looked at is just the MCC area. Administrator Joynes explained that is where the money is taken out of but it can be used for tangentially related projects. 7. Future Proposals Administrator Joynes stated the City has been approached about future development interests that have come about because of the MCC redevelopment project. The SCRS Area and Badger Park have already been mentioned. There had been at least one and possibly two qualified developers that have come and talked about the SCRS Area. Another had talked about one area of Badger Park and another talked about all of Badger Park. Those projects would require City participation through the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA). He noted the EDA has the authority to levy a tax. He stated it is likely that during this budget cycle staff will propose allocating some money to the EDA to become operational. Joynes pointed to an area on a graphic that will likely become more desirable for developers to possibly construct a different housing style. He pointed to another area that is located in Shorewood and Excelsior (an old restaurant site near Highway 7 and Country Road 19) where a developer wants to build 100 units of senior housing with the structure being four stories high. He explained that because that property crosses Shorewood /Excelsior city boundaries there will a set of complications that would need to be addressed. That developer intends on asking for tax increment financing (TIF) and a TIF district would be a complication. He noted that type of thing has been done in other places. That project would require a level of cooperation with Excelsior which the City has not experienced for a few years. Even though most of the units that would be built would be in Shorewood, Excelsior has indicated that will place a burden on Excelsior because the residents in those units will walk over to Kowalski's for groceries. Excelsior has concern about safety at the intersection. Excelsior will be asking for some support because it perceives there will be a burden placed on it because of the housing that will be built in Shorewood. City Council /Staff Work Session Minutes July 7, 2015 Page 22 of 22 Acting Mayor Siakel stated that because Excelsior Elementary School is located in Excelsior at the intersection of County Road 19 and Highway 7 that places a greater burden on Shorewood because of people crossing Highway 7 and the trail to Galpin Lake Road. Councilmember Sundberg concurred. Administrator Joynes stated there are complications with the property being located in both Shorewood and Excelsior. He clarified he does think that development can be accomplished because there are ways to work things out. He noted that it is likely Council will see that proposal this summer. Acting Mayor Siakel asked at what point the market becomes over saturated with senior housing and age - targeted housing. She suggested the City exercise caution about allowing too many units to be built. Director Nielsen stated a developer will have to demonstrate what the market for that type of housing is. Staff has been told the market is very strong at this time in this area. Mr. Shardlow stated the baby boom generation has affected real estate from the very beginning. It is now affecting senior housing. There is a very good chance that it will be overbuilt. When senior housing is discussed there is discussion about it being built with flexibility so it can be used for another type of housing when the demand for it lessens. Administrator Joynes stated there will be some pressure on a developer to be the first in with senior housing. By the time the fourth developer comes along there is some discomfort as to whether or not the need is there. Acting Mayor Siakel asked if the developer for the old restaurant site or the developer for the site of Lucky's Station is further ahead than the other. Administrator Joynes stated the one for the restaurant site is way ahead. 8. Adjourn Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council July 7, 2015, Work Session at 12:10 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman BSc Zerby„Ma or ATTEST: 190 -y \- � Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk