Loading...
PC-03-20-12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: Commissioners Davis and Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for March 20, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 6, 2012 Hasek moved, Charbonnet seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. DISCUSSION – SMITHTOWN CROSSING Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has held two public meetings related to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study). One was an open house and it was held on October 4, 2011. The other was a public hearing and it was held during the Commission’s December 6, 2011, meeting. During both meetings the Commission received a number of public comments about the Study. Toward the end of the public hearing the Commission suggested making certain improvements to the Study report and addressing the comments and concerns of the people that spoke during the two meetings. The meeting packet contains a cover memorandum he prepared addressing some of the items, a th summary of resident comments from the October 4 meeting, a copy of the minutes from the public hearing discussion, a copy of the table the Commission had prepared that lists the advantages of a unified development as opposed to piece-meal development, a copy of a new Guiding Principles section that will replace the Vision Statement per the Commission’s direction, and a new Executive Summary in bullet- point form. Nielsen asked the Commission if a copy of the table should be included in the Study Report. He stated people are still asking why the Study was conducted. Commissioner Hasek stated he supported including an expanded version of the table. Hasek suggested the short bullet-point like statements in the table be expanded to more clearly explain things. He thought the table is too simplified. Nielsen asked the other Commissioners if they thought the comments in the table could be elaborated upon and if it the table should be added to the Introduction section of the report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Charbonnet suggested the Executive Summary should be located in the beginning of the report. He stated he agreed that the comments in the table should be expanded upon. Also, the comments should include some clarification of why; not just what. He clarified he thought it would be best to keep the sentences short and concise yet clear. He suggested placing a copy of the revised table in the Introduction section and toward the beginning. Chair Geng expressed his agreement with Commissioners Charbonnet’s and Hasek’s suggestions. Director Nielsen noted the Commission specifically chose not to include the two illustrations of unified versus piece-meal in the Study report. The Commission did not want to direct how the development may look. He asked the Commission if it still thinks that is what it wants to do. Chair Geng stated he did not think it was necessary to include a sketch in the report. It may be beneficial to have a one short introduction that states the development of the Study area is going to occur in one of two ways. It will either be redeveloped on a piece-meal basis (individual property by individual property) or it will be redeveloped in a unified fashion, noting that following are what the Commission has determined to be the pros and cons of those two development scenarios. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought the tables in the Study report should be located in one place such as the back. They can be referred to in the body of the report. Director Nielsen stated a question was raised relative to the Study area boundaries and the amount of land that is actually available for redevelopment. He is not sure where that question comes from because the three diagrams in the report have the same boundaries. He noted that the Introduction section explained that the westernmost boundary is left somewhat open and that boundary will depend on a particular development. He also noted that based on the comments from residents living near the area the preference is to keep the two westerly residential properties in the Study area as single-family residential properties. Commissioner Hasek stated the house located on the property between the residential property the City owns and the commercial property appears to be quite old. He commented that if the property owner wanted to sell it as commercial it would be relatively easy to rezone it to commercial. He noted he does not care where the westerly boundary is. Director Nielsen stated he would be reluctant to say the commercial zoning could be extended that far west. Hasek withdrew his comment stating he thought there did need to be a buffer between the two types of zoning. Director Nielsen stated the two westerly residential properties could potential be used for transition. Nielsen then stated it is quite possible that the City-owned property would remain vacant and be used as a buffer with landscaping. He noted there is a height limitation on the two residential properties. He asked if the desire for a transition area should be emphasized in the report. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought it should. Commissioner Charbonnet stated he thought that should be kept fairly general. For example, it could say the City encourages the developer to use the two lots at the westerly end of the Study area to create a reasonable transition from commercial into the residential zoning area immediately west of the Study area. Nielsen noted the height limitation is quite specific. Charbonnet stated he is not concerned about that particular specific. Hasek stated he thought the report should specifically state that the two westerly residential properties will be the transition from higher density to the east and residential areas to the west. Nielsen clarified it should state “if the redevelopment goes on to those two residential properties” because the redevelopment may not include them. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 3 of 11 Chair Geng noted that based on the comments the Commission received the most common oppositions were regarding height, intensity of use and type of use. He stated he understands the residents in the abutting neighborhood to be saying they do not want to have any commercial development on the westerly end of the northwest quadrant Study area. Director Nielsen clarified the Commission has never indicated there would be commercial development there. The properties would continue to be zoned residential. Commissioner Hasek stated that should be specifically stated in the report. Geng stated it may be prudent to be more specific about what the City means by transition. Nielsen suggested it must be made clear the properties will remain residential and that they will satisfy the transition idea through height, open space and landscape. Commissioner Hutchins stated based on feedback received during the public meetings the most emotional issue was related to the west-end buffer because it has the most impact on property owners closest to the west end of the Study area. Therefore, he thought it prudent to clarify things as best as possible. He questioned what would happen if that west end of the Study area became a natural park rather than single- family residential housing. He stated that could be considered a buffer zone. He suggested that be clarified in the beginning of the Study report. Hutchins noted that Gideon Glen is included in the Study area, yet there is no intent to impact that area at all. Director Nielsen stated that whatever happens to residential or commercial components of the Study area it should take advantage of Gideon Glen and it should protect it. Hutchins suggested the report explain the reason for including Gideon Glen in the Study area. Chair Geng noted that one resident indicated they thought Gideon Glen is where the ponding would go. Geng stated that he agreed with Hutchins that the rational for including Gideon Glen should be explained; it is the aesthetic value of the view. Nielsen noted the goal is to also protect Gideon Glen. Geng suggested the report also clarify there is no intent to develop Gideon Glen. Commissioner Hasek asked if it would be helpful to put the boundary on the back side of the properties that may be redeveloped. He stated he thought the acreages be shown for each parcel in Figure 1 (which shows the Study area boundaries) in the report. Chair Geng suggested it specify Gideon Glen is not developable and that Gideon Glen be shaded a different color. Commissioner Charbonnet agreed that it should specifically say that Gideon Glen is not developable. Hasek suggested the border around Gideon Glen also be made a different color. Chair Geng suggested including a pie-chart graphic which depicts the relative size of the properties in the Study area. Director Nielsen noted the acreages and addresses of the properties are included in the Appendix. Nielsen suggested showing the acreages and addresses on Figure 1 in the report. Commissioner Hasek stated from his vantage point the more information included on the graphic in the report the better. Commissioner Hasek stated at one point there was a concept plan prepared for the Study area that included a buffer. Director Nielsen asked the Commission if the concept plan, a schematic, should be included in the report. Hasek stated he thought that would have helped residents understand things a little more. Director Nielsen stated in the Study area graphics in the report he will pull the boundary in the northwest quadrant down to the backs of the individual properties, and he will highlight Gideon Glen as being a protected and undevelopable area. He noted the report should still address Gideon Glen as an amenity and the need to protect it. He asked if the Commission wants to change the boundary on the northeast quadrant as well. He explained the entire acreage of the public safety and public works facilities yet the boundary only goes up to the back of the one residential property in that quadrant. He asked if those acreages should be subtracted out. He explained the issue in that quadrant is what to do with that one residential property and with what to do about a pedestrian crossing that would connect to Badger Park. Commissioner Hasek CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 4 of 11 suggested color coding the property those facilities are on as public land. Nielsen clarified it is labeled as such. Hasek stated the boundary of those areas could be color coded for clarification. Chair Geng supported taking the public facilities out. Nielsen stated that boundary will be pulled in and the acreages for the public facilities will be subtracted out of the total acreage. Chair Geng stated the Study has not focused on the areas east of Country Club Road. The Study report addresses the northwest quadrant of the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection area. He suggested the Commission focus on that for now. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the same concepts and principles should apply to the northeast quadrant. Nielsen expressed he agreed the focus has been on the northwest quadrant. Nielsen stated the focus for the northeast quadrant will primarily be a pedestrian crossing. Commissioner Hasek suggested reducing the scale of Figure 1 in order to include more of the Echo Road neighborhood, the Minnetonka Golf Course property and the Christopher Road neighborhood in the graphic. He also suggested making Badger Park green on the graphic. Director Nielsen asked the Commission if there would be value in having a site location map included at the beginning of the report. He explained there has already been a suggestion made to add more information and shrinking the scale down would not be conducive to that. Commissioner Hasek stated the topography map could be modified to include the above areas and some of the detail information could be eliminated. Nielsen stated he will have a site location map prepared that shrinks the Study area and that shows more context, noting it would be included in the beginning of the report. Director Nielsen asked the Commission if it wants the concept plan included in the report. Commissioner Hutchins stated when people are given as little as a concept plan they tend to lock into it and they get hung up on the concept. Hutchins noted the Commission has no idea what the concept would actually look like. Hutchins expressed concern that a concept plan would generate more questions than it would answer. Commissioner Hasek stated that depends on what a concept plan shows. For example, if it shows buildings then he thinks Hutchins concern is very valid. If it is quite general he thought there wouldn’t be a problem. Nielsen noted photographs of different developments the Commission visited and liked were included in the report. Nielsen stated the logical place to include a concept plan would be at the end of the report. Nielsen suggested he write a lead-in to that graphic for the Commission to discuss. Hutchins stated it is critical the explanation for why the concept plan is included is very clear, and it should explain what it is intended to communicate. Nielsen stated it is intended to reflect the different components and their relationships. He noted that he thought the concept plan was useful when speaking with people who attended the open house on the Study. Commissioner Hutchins suggested that this evening the Commission be cognizant that Councilmember Zerby expressed his concern that it didn’t appear that the Commission gave credence to the comments and concerns expressed by the residents during the open house and in writing. He quoted the following excerpt th of Zerby’s comments from the minutes of the December 6 Planning Commission meeting during which the public hearing was held. The excerpt read as follows. “He expressed he had a concern about the process. The Planning Commission has solicited the concerns of residents, but it doesn’t appear it has responded to them. He stated he reviewed the minutes of the first Planning Commission meeting held after the open house and he was disturbed to find very little discussion about the comments made by residents during the open house. He noted that Nielsen told him that no changes were made to the Study based on the feedback received. A word wasn’t changed or added. He stated if the City is going to ask for resident feedback it should be recognized and acted on.” He encouraged the Commission to do everything it can to at least consider the comments and concerns. He noted that to date the Commission has heard only from CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 5 of 11 residents who have a specific interest because they live close to or in the Study area. It is an emotional issue for them as well. Director Nielsen reiterated that on the Figure 1 he: has put the property addresses and their acreages; will pull the Study area boundary down to the backs of the individual properties; will highlight Gideon Glen as being a protected and undevelopable area; will change the boundary on the northeast quadrant by taking the public facilities out of the Study area; and, adjust the acreages in the text of the report. Nielsen asked the Commission if the new proposed Guiding Principles section does what it was intended to do. He explained as part of that section he took what had been the Vision Statement paragraph and broke it apart into individual guiding principles. Commissioner Hutchins suggested adding the word redevelopment in front of the words guiding principles throughout that that section. Chair Geng noted that the last sentence in the section states “… these principles will likely evolve as they are subjected to public input” while noting they have not evolved so far despite public input. Geng stated he did not think the report should suggest something that Commission has not been delivering. Nielsen suggested adding another principle regarding the specifics about the transitional portion on the west end of the northwest quadrant Study area. Hutchins suggested replacing the current number 4 principle which states “Uses within the study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing.” with the principle about that transition area. There was consensus to replace the current principle number 4 with one regarding the specifics about the transition portion of the west end of the northwest quadrant Study area. There was also consensus to delete the last line of the section which reads “It must be realized that these principles will likely evolve as they are subjected to public input.” Director Nielsen stated his plan is to publish a third draft of the Study report that does not track the additions, changes and deletions in various colors. He noted the changes made in response to public comment will be pointed out during the next public hearing on the Study. He noted he will revise the Executive Summary to reflect the specifics about the transitional area. Chair Geng asked if the public comments are going to become part of the Study report in the Appendix. Director Nielsen stated he did not recommend they be included in the report, but the plan is to put them along with the Study report on the City’s website for people to access. Commissioner Garelick stated he thought the comments should be kept separate from the report. Commissioner Garelick questioned if the residents may act more positively to a duplex in the transitional area rather than only commercial property. Director Nielsen stated he thought the Commission talked about that area being lower intensity, lower buildings, and heavily landscaped but not anything more specific than that. Chair Geng stated that after the Commission has completed its work and the next draft of the Study report is forwarded to the City Council for review and comment he assumes Council will at that time also be provided with a copy of the comments received from the public. Director Nielsen stated that is correct. Geng withdrew his suggestion to include the comments in the Study report. Nielsen reiterated the comments will be made available on the City’s website along with the report. Council Liaison Hotvet suggested there be some reference made to having addressed the public’s concerns about their desire for a transitional area included in the Study report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 6 of 11 The Commission now started to discuss public comments received during the October 4. 2011, open house about the Study. With regard to the public comment “I’d suggest a strong perspective on the “type” of housing which is considered… top choice – single-family, 2nd choice – senior housing, 3rd – apartments”, Chair Geng stated the Commission has intentionally tried to avoid doing that. Director Nielsen stated the Study report will specify to some extent that low intensity, low building housing would be considered for the most westerly properties in the northwest quadrant Study area. With regard to the comment “Can the American Legion be relocated? This would allow additional land without the need of removing existing housing.” Director Nielsen stated that is up to the American Legion. With regard to the comment “Buffering and land use transitions were unclear at the meeting – some charts showed the housing in the buffer zone and some did not. There is not enough property to add senior housing or any multi-level housing.”, Director Nielsen stated the Commission has already discussed the need to clarify that. There were a few comments about pedestrian / bicycle circulation / connection. With regard to the comment “Consider role of bike paths to the intersection of 19/Smithtown and public transportation needs for planned development on the corner.”, Director Nielsen stated the Commission has considered that. With regard to the comment “There is already too much traffic on Smithtown Road. This redevelopment will make it even worse. It will also increase “turnaround” traffic on Christopher Road which is already a problem. It would necessitate a bike path on Smithtown which residents have opposed.”, Nielsen stated the current sentiment seems to favor bike and pedestrian passageways City wide. Nielsen explained this dove tails with the Trail Plan Implementation Report. Nielsen suggested the City hold its ground on this. Commissioner Hasek stated if a trail/bike path were to be constructed on the side of Smithtown Road where there are two residential properties it would be right next to those properties and property owners will likely not be supportive of that. Commissioner Hutchins stated that circulation was one of the 4 – 5 items that the public brought up. He did not think the Study report addresses circulation. It does talk about circulation within the Study area itself. It does not talk about the impact of circulation or what the City might do about the impact the circulation may have on County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. He asked if circulation and traffic patterns and impacts should be discussed in more detail in the Study report. Director Nielsen stated the Study report just talks about pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Hutchins suggested the report talk about vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic and the impact of it in the report. Nielsen noted that guiding principle number 7 states “Access to and egress from, and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle friendly”. Nielsen stated he thought the report included a reference to doing traffic studies. Hutchins explained there is a section in the report titled Planning Issues and one of the bulleted items states “Access (vehicular) to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road.” He stated total circulation around the area has been an issue for quite some time. He suggested including a paragraph in the Study report about how circulation in general may be addressed. Chair Geng agreed the concern about increased traffic was expressed frequently. Commissioner Hasek stated he agreed with that and then stated that was another pro for a cohesive development approach because there will be fewer access points into the northwest quadrant. Director Nielsen stated that although he can’t find it in the current draft of the Study report he does think it should include a requirement to conduct a traffic study for the area and assess the impact of the proposed redevelopment on traffic. He then stated that one of the reasons Staff had been pushing senior housing for CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 7 of 11 increased density in the northwest quadrant was it would have the least impact on traffic. He noted that in recent discussions the Commission has moved away from senior housing. He also noted that the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan has recommended senior housing for higher density because of the lower volume of traffic when compared to apartment traffic. Chair Geng noted that throughout Study discussions the Commission has acknowledged that a developer is actually going to drive how the northwest quadrant is redeveloped. It will be determined based on what the market dictates. Director Nielsen explained the current commercial zoning in the northwest quadrant goes up to the single- family residential property. If a developer wants to include some type of housing in the redevelopment a traffic study will have to assess traffic comparisons for housing versus all commercial. Nielsen stated it will be prudent to explain to residents that the redevelopment options will somewhat be dictated by market analysis and traffic studies. One of the reasons senior housing is recommended is because of the lower traffic impact. Nielsen explained the City has some general traffic information. For single-family detached homes it is 8 – 10 trips per day. For townhouses it is 5 – 8. Commissioner Hasek stated that high-end residential generates more traffic than low-end residential because of there being more vehicles. Nielsen stated he does not share Hasek’s perspective based on his experience growing up. Nielsen then stated he thought he could find general traffic comparisons for various types of housing and various density housing and include that in the Study report. Commissioner Garelick asked why some people are so strongly opposed to senior housing. Director Nielsen stated one reason is people resist change. Nielsen then stated if an area next to a single-family residential area was going to be something other than single-family residential he does not understand why people would object to an office building or senior housing. Senior housing can be a great neighbor. He noted that many fears were expressed about the Shorewood Ponds development. None of the concerns came to fruition. He stated they are a law abiding group and very good neighbors. Commissioner Hutchins stated a single-family property owner is going to be concerned about their property value if senior housing is developed next to them. Director Nielsen stated if something isn’t done transitionally with the two residential lots on the west end of the northwest quadrant Study area the commercial will happen at the existing commercial zoning line. Council Liaison Hotvet commented that she and her husband sold a previous residential property located th near 50 and France Avenue in Edina after owning it for seven years for an increase in value of 200 percent when that area was being developed commercially. Some people want to live close to a commercial district for convenience purposes. Commissioner Hasek stated that perception is often what gets people concerned. They may not be able to back up their perception but that does not make any difference. With regard to the public comment “Do not need senior housing. I do not support a multi-level complex, including a variance to exceed the current height restrictions. I believe this portion of the redevelopment will decrease my property value.”, Director Nielsen stated it is appropriate to agree to disagree in this instance. With regard to the public comment “I’m also opposed to the thinning of the wooded area behind my home and that of my neighbors on Christopher Road as this area helps reduce traffic noise from Highway 19 and obstructs views of commercial signage.”, Director Nielsen stated the intent is to enhance the landscaping. Commissioner Hasek stated if the person who made this comments lives farther north on CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 8 of 11 Christopher Road there is nothing the redevelopment would do about that. Nielsen stated he did not know who made this comment and noted there are still a number of residents who are upset about Gideon Glen in part because some large trees were taken down. Residents forget about the improvements made there. With regard to the comment “I support the redevelopment of the Legion properties (the gas station and the existing Legion building). I do not support a senior housing complex and new retail/business.”, Director Nielsen noted that entire area is zoned commercial. Commissioner Hutchins stated that there were two other items that he thought stood out based on the comments received at the open house and the public hearing. He thought they were addressed in the redevelopment guiding principles and the rest of the Study report. One was building mass. People are concerned a massive building will be constructed on the northwest quadrant Study area and that it will not fit in with the character of the rest of the area. This is of particular concern if a taller building is allowed than is currently allowed today. The other is the commercial. The City can’t control what the specific needs are. But, he thought it important to make it clear in the report that the City has to serve the needs of the entire community not just the neighboring community. The concept is about community services. He explained that principle 6 states “Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the community as a whole.” Principle 11 states “Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: variations in roofline and form; use of ground level arcades and covered areas; use of protected and recessed entries; inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas; and, retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building.” Director Nielsen stated in the Design Section of the Study report there is a photograph of a building made with natural materials that is over four stories tall and he has been told that people were disturbed by it. He asked the Commission if it thought it should be removed. Chair Geng stated it is his impression that residents are opposed to high buildings. Therefore, he supported removing that photograph. Commissioner Hutchins stated he could understand people being concerned about a building of similar height being constructed along side of County Road 19. Nielsen stated he will find a photograph of a building constructed with natural materials that is not so tall to include in the report. Nielsen noted that the current Ordinance for that commercial zoning district states a structure can be three stories tall or up to 40 feet high whichever is less. Nielsen expressed his discomfort with allowing a future development to be four stories high. He noted that height increase is included in the report as an incentive. He stated that allowing a building with a height that extends above the tree tops is not something the City’s residents want. He commented that senior housing developers have indicated they build three-story buildings all the time. He recommended removing that height increase incentive from the report. He suggested going away from a number-of-stories regulation and having just a building-height regulation of not to exceed 40 feet. He noted for a pitched roof it can be slightly higher. Chair Geng suggested including in the Study report an acknowledgement of a common resident concern expressed about building height. And, explain that based on the current zoning for the property the City’s Ordinance allows a developer to construct a pitched-roof building with a height of over 40 feet. Director Nielsen stated if the possibility of increasing the height is taken out of the report he thought that would help. The report could note that the Ordinance allows buildings to be constructed up to 40 plus feet high and that the visual impact of that height can be mitigated in a variety of ways. Commissioner Hasek stated it is important to refer to current City Code restrictions. Geng then suggested acknowledging that there is a difference of opinion regarding building height between developers and residents, and noting resident concern about height that is out of character with the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 9 of 11 area will be taken into consideration. Nielsen noted the current report states the City will consider increased height as an incentive to get the developer to do some things the City would like to see. Nielsen stated the reaction would be the same anywhere in the City. Commissioner Charbonnet stated he agreed with Geng that it should be acknowledged in the report and explained that the Commission can’t resolve it because the Commission doesn’t know what a developer is going to propose. Geng stated he thought it appropriate to let developers know the residents’ sentiments regarding height and to let residents know their concerns are going to be taken into consideration. And, also acknowledging developers may want to build buildings that would be taller than what the Zoning Code currently allows. Commissioner Hutchins suggested including something about the desire to be consistent with the character of the area while also considering current Zoning Code allowances. Director Nielsen stated he will draft some preliminary language about height concerns and desires; both developers’ and residents’. Nielsen noted the City has not committed to tax increment financing but it has acknowledged that it would give it some consideration. The discussion moved to the process used to date. Director Nielsen stated he regretted that the City did not have a sign-in sheet for the open house. The City does not know who came. He explained the plan is to have the revised draft of the Study report along with residents’ comments on the City’s website for a period of 30 days. He noted as resident’s comments come in they will be added to the website. He asked if the next public meeting should be informal or a public hearing. Commissioner Hasek stated he preferred a public hearing or at least some organized type of meeting. Commissioner Hasek stated residents have asked what will happen with the Minnetonka Country Club property. He noted the City doesn’t know the answer to that. He stated he doesn’t know how that should be addressed. Director Nielsen stated his preference would be to tell residents what the City approached the owner of that property with. He noted the City would like to have a golf course remain in that vicinity. The City has spoken to the property owner unofficially about the possibility of an opportunity coming along where the housing development could be concentrated on a portion of the property and that a 9-hole golf be located on the other part of the property. He noted he is not sure that is viable. Chair Geng stated he did not think that should be addressed in the Study report. Nielsen noted it should not because that is not an official City position. Geng stated if that comes up it should be explained that it is outside of the focus on the northwest quadrant, the property is privately held and that no one knows when something will happen to that property. Nielsen noted the property is zoned for single-family houses. Hasek commented that the Commission had previously decided to exclude that from the Study report. In response to a comment from Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the report will elaborate that if the properties are developed on a piece-meal basis each property will have to have its own ponding based on current watershed rules. A unified development would allow for the ponding to be consolidated. Also, Gideon Glen was not sized to accommodate run off from the redevelopment site. Commissioner Hutchins asked if the runoff from the Heartbreaker property flows into Gideon Glen. Nielsen explained it does while noting if that property were to be redeveloped it would have to have its own ponding. Hutchins stated that would reduce the flow into the pond at Gideon Glen. Nielsen said that the reason Gideon Glen cannot be used for runoff should be explained during the meeting but not included in the report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 10 of 11 Director Nielsen stated he has to assess how much time it will take to revamp the Study report before he can suggest dates for anything else in the process. He commented that the City and Commission will likely still be criticized by residents. Commissioner Hutchins asked if the process schedule will allow for the Commission to get feedback about the revised Study report from Council prior to holding the next public hearing. Director Nielsen stated the Commission could have a joint meeting with the Council once the third draft is finalized and before it is publicized. Commissioner Hasek suggested that joint meeting be scheduled far enough in advance to attempt to accommodate all of the Councilmembers and the Commissioners schedules so everyone can be in attendance, noting that it was impossible to ask that. Hasek suggested having the discussion during a Council work session. Chair Geng stated he did not think there needs to be a lengthy discussion. Nielsen stated if it is held before the end of May more people may be around; possibly the work session before Council’s second meeting in May. Chair Geng asked when the next public hearing will be held. Director Nielsen stated probably in July. 2. DETERMINE REMAINDER OF 2012 COUNCIL LISIAONS Council Liaisons were selected as followed: March 2012 Commissioner Garelick April 2012 Commissioner Hutchins May 2012 Commissioner Charbonnet June 2012 Commissioner Hasek The Liaisons for the remainder of the year will be selected during the next Planning Commission meeting. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. OLD BUSINESS None. 5. NEW BUSINESS Director Nielsen noted the meeting packets for this meeting were delivered on Thursday evening instead of the typical Friday delivery. He explained the process has been changed to ensure the Commissioners get their packets on the Thursday before their upcoming meeting. He then explained that he will set aside time on Mondays preceding the meeting (maybe from 11:00 A.M. to Noon) to take phone or email questions from the Commissioners about the packet materials. If he can’t answer the questions right away he will try and have an answer available at the meeting. He noted that if the City receives comments from residents after the packet is delivered there is nothing he can do about that. Council Liaison Hotvet asked if anyone is aware of what the plans are for the commercial redevelopment of the corner of County Road 19 and Water Street in the City of Excelsior. She noted Jon Munson is going to develop the area. She stated she thought the Planning Commission should keep abreast of this. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 11 of 11 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Charbonnet noted he will not be able to attend the April 3, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Director Nielsen stated during the April 3, 2012, Planning Commission meeting there will be continued discussion about Smithtown Crossing. There will also be some discussion about life-cycle housing. There will be consideration of a conditional use permit. There will be discussion about the Commission’s new responsibility for implementing the Trail Plan and the trail segment along County Road 19. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Planning Commissioner Garelick stated he was the Liaison to the March 12, 2012, Regular City Council meeting. He expressed his amazement at the number of times Mayor Lizée mentioned the Planning Commission. He stated it reinforced for him the importance of the Commission. He explained that he went on a ride along with South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Patrol Sergeant Mark Guyer recently. He spent one half day with him. He encouraged other Commissioners to do the same. Commissioner Hasek asked Commissioner Garelick to give an example of something that he found beneficial during the ride along. Garelick stated they drove to the partially constructed mansion in the City of Greenwood. He explained to Sergeant Guyer some of the history of it. Things he knew because he is a member of the Hennepin County Board of Equalization. He then stated the Guyer told him some history about various properties in the South Lake community. He commented that his ride along gave him a better sense of community. Commissioner Garelick stated he had asked SLMPD Community Service Supervisor (CSS) Hohertz to speak to the Shorewood Ponds property owners about fraud that elderly residents were experiencing. He explained the fraud that is most concerning involves young people calling what they say are their grandparents and asking them to wire money to them because they are in some type of predicament and they need money. • SLUC Commissioner Hasek asked if Director Nielsen is going to report on the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) going forward. Director Nielsen stated he will take on that responsibility, noting it may just be about upcoming sessions. • Other None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Charbonnet seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 20, 2012, at 9:21 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder