Loading...
PC-09-14-10 CITY OF SHOREWOOD LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2010 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Hutchins, Ruoff, Vilett; Davis, Arnst, Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Hasek APPROVAL OF MINUTES  20 July 2010  17 August 2010 Ruoff moved, Hutchins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 20 July 2010 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. Arnst moved, Vilett seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 17 August 2010 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. DISCUSS MIXED USE REGULATIONS Planning Director Nielsen advised the Commission that one of the tasks associated with the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area Study was to draft regulations for mixed use, allowing a potential mixture of residential and commercial land uses within a single project. He started out saying that, if need be, the City could process a mixed use development under the current P.U.D. provisions found in the Zoning Code. The current Code, however, does not contain standards specific to mixed use. Nielsen also mentioned that we had previously discussed tying mixed use regulations to the Comprehensive Plan, not only the language found in the current Plan, but also to any future language relative to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. Nielsen explained that one of the outcomes of the Study would be an area plan for the study area. The area plan would be similar to what we have for each of the various planning districts in the Comprehensive Plan. The area plan would contain our vision statement for the study area, goals and objectives for redevelopment, and defining what it is the City is looking for in the study area. Nielsen then reviewed a two-page handout containing a draft of language relative to mixed use development and a list of criteria that could be incorporated into the Smithtown Crossing Area Plan. The mixture of uses allowed in a mixed use project would be taken from the multiple-family districts, the R-C and C-1 zoning districts. Shorewood has already stated that the commercial uses in Smithtown Crossing should be a retail type mix. The developers that met with us have suggested the term “service commercial”, such as banking, personal services, etc. Nielsen explained that our current code refers to CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 14 September 2010 Page 2 of 3 service commercial when talking about trade contractor shops and similar activities. This will require some clarification to distinguish between the two uses of the term. He cited six criteria set forth in the handout text. Additional language referring to architectural character, and landscaping would be written into the Area Plan. The mixed use provisions would only apply to areas specifically referenced in the Comprehensive Plan, Smithtown Crossing being one of those areas. As referenced in the current P.U.D. provisions, a mixed use project would require a minimum site size of four acres gross land area. Building height for a well designed project could be increased from forty feet to 45 feet, with no reference to the number of stories. Vilett questioned whether the 45 feet would be the new standard for height. Nielsen replied that the increased height would have to be “earned” through design. He also explained that, due to the way height is measured, a 45-foot tall building could actually be higher than that in the case of a pitched roof. Woodruff suggested that it is important to clarify how the additional building height is earned. A provision setting forth a ratio of residential to commercial use was discussed. The consensus of the Commission was to not include such a requirement in the ordinance. Nielsen pointed out that a maximum density of six units per acre was included in the text, consistent with current R-3A, Multiple-Family Residential provisions. The density relative to elderly housing was left blank for further discussion. He mentioned that a consensus of the developer panel had indicated that our current limitation of 10 units per acre for elderly housing simply would not work for a project such as Smithtown Crossing. A question was raised as to the density of the Sunrise project in Golden Valley. Nielsen offered to find that out and report back. He stated that the density of the Wartman project in Minnetonka had a residential density of somewhere between 40 and 50 units per acre, a product of a large building on a relatively small parcel of land. Nielsen suggested that a density of 15-20 senior housing units per acre might be appropriate for Smithtown Crossing. He also suggested that assisted living projects should not be addressed by density but rather should be treated more like a commercial activity. Councilmember Woodruff questioned limiting the higher density to elderly housing. Nielsen responded that there is a significant difference in impact between senior housing and say, market rate rental housing, in terms of parking, traffic, etc. Nielsen suggested that a sixty unit apartment building, for example, might be viewed differently by local area residents than a sixty unit senior housing project. Commissioner Arnst questioned elderly housing for the project, thinking that it lacked a certain vibrancy. Nielsen explained how the Federal Fair Housing Act allows discrimination in housing, only relative to the elderly, which is used synonymously with senior housing. For qualifying projects, senior housing allows residents 55 years and older. Other projects are limited to 62 years and older. He mentioned the Shorewood Pond senior housing project on Eureka and Highway 7 and that the seniors there appear to be quite active. Arnst does not agree with specifying elderly housing for the Smithtown Crossing project. Vilett agreed. Davis mentioned a project in Watertown that included a mix of senior housing units. After further discussion, it was suggested that the language in the Code should be clarified to describe housing for residents 55 years and older and not excluding assisted living as an element of the project. The last of the criteria discussed was a provision referencing internal pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 2. DISCUSS ZONING LAW UPDATE There was brief discussion regarding the State Supreme Court ruling in the case of Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka. Nielsen reported that the City Attorney agreed that the case has little impact on Shorewood because of how the City has considered variances in the past. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 14 September 2010 Page 3 of 3 3. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – VINE HILL ROAD/HIGHWAY 7 INTERSECTION Director Nielsen stated that one of the items on the Commission’s Work Program is a discussion of the intersection of Vine Hill Road and State Highway 7. The Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this intersection as a transportation issue that should be addressed by Shorewood and Deephaven. Nielsen mentioned that the topic does not appear in the Deephaven Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Woodruff was aware that it was a matter being pursued by the Deephaven Council. The Planning Commission agreed to leave the language in Shorewood’s Comprehensive Plan as currently written. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. 5. NEW BUSINESS None. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated that notice had been sent out to property owners within 1000 feet of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center advising them of a public forum to be held at the Planning Commission meeting on 21 September to discuss the current no right-turn restriction on Lake Linden Drive. To date, only three written responses had been received. Councilmember Woodruff reminded the Commission that part of the reasoning for the original turn restriction was to discourage truck traffic from using Lake Linden to get to County Road 19. The Commission was also reminded that we would meet early on 5 October to do a walking tour of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Ruoff explained that he was liaison to the Council but was unable to attend. Director Nielsen reviewed the items discussed that may be of interest to the Commission: 1) an extension of a preliminary plat for Bill Erickson; 2) an extension of time to comply with a notice to correct a noise violation behind the Waterford Shopping Center; and 3) the Council agreed to conduct a tree inventory, using in-house personnel, in conjunction with the Emerald Ash Borer study currently under way. Councilmember Woodruff added that the Council continues to work on the capital improvement program and enterprise budgets. The general fund budget was approved with no levy increase. The Police budget was also approved at the meeting prior, on a three-two vote. 8. ADJOURNMENT Vilett moved, Arnst seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 14 September at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Brad Nielsen, Planning Director