Loading...
PC-03-04-14 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2014 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Labadie, and Maddy; Council Liaison Sundberg; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Geng asked that Item 5.A Commissioner Attendance be added to the agenda. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for March 4, 2014, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  February 5, 2014 Maddy moved, Labadie seconded, approving the approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Henrik Nielsen Location: 4755 West Lane Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for Henrik Nielsen, 4755 West Lane. He explained the Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. They are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on March 10, 2014. Director Nielsen explained that Mr. Henrik Nielsen is in the process of constructing a new home on the property located at 4755 West Lane. The proposed attached garage will be greater than 1200 square feet in area. That requires a C.U.P. pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code which Mr. Nielsen has applied for. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 2 of 24 The property is zoned R-lA/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains approximately 56,650 square feet of area. The proposed garage is located on the north end of the new home and contains 1268 square feet of area. The proposed home contains 2474 square feet of area on the main level alone, with additional space in a lower level. The proposed garage is at an approximate 45 degree angle to the house and to the street and it faces a northwesterly direction. With regard to the analysis of the C.U.P. request, Nielsen reviewed how the applicant’s request complies with the four criteria listed in Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City’s Zoning Code for granting this type of C.U.P. 1. The total amount of accessory space (1,268 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade (2,474 square feet – main level) of the principal dwelling.The small utility shed located to the south of the existing home on the site has been removed. 2. The total amount of accessory space cannot exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R- 1A/S zoning district in which the property is located (.10 x 40,000 = 4000). 3. The proposed house and garage comply with R-lA/S setback requirements. Hardcover on the site will be 13.8 percent, well within the 25 percent maximum requirement. The site is heavily wooded and the structure is well screened from the street and adjoining properties. 4. Since the new garage is an integral part of the proposed house, architectural compatibility is not considered to be an issue. The proposed angle of the garage actually diminishes the size of the garage. The relocation of the driveway from the south side of the lot to the north, moving it farther from the street corner, is also considered an improvement. Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case staff recommends the C.U.P. be granted as requested. Mr. Henrik Nielsen stated his intent is to build a house and garage that are aesthetically appealing. Not to make a big garage. The garage is a little larger because of the proposed angle relationship it will have with the house. He did work with an architect on different options for the location of the garage. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. Gretchen Sebald, 20625 Garden Road, noted she lives just around the corner from Mr. Nielsen. She asked if the proposed building stays within the setback restrictions. Director Nielsen noted it complies with all of the setback requirements. Linda Bean, 20620 Garden Road, stated she lives across the road from Ms. Sebald. Ms. Bean asked if the new house is going to be mainly in the same position as the existing house. Director Nielsen stated it will be located a little further to the north and the new house will also face West Lane. Ms. Bean stated what is being proposed is an attractive plan. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Maddy, Director Nielsen explained the applicant plans to move the driveway from the current location to the north end of the lot. Nielsen noted that new location will be an improvement because the current driveway was close to the corner. Maddy asked if the existing driveway will be demolished. Nielsen responded it will be. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 3 of 24 Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Henrik Nielsen, 4755 West Lane. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION Applicant: Keenen Dammen Location: 20435 Radisson Road, Outlots C & D, and 5590 Shore Road Chair Geng explained Keenen Dammen, 20435 Radisson Road, proposes to sell his Outlots C and D to Ian and Carol Friendly who own the property located at 5590 Shore Road. Director Nielsen explained Mr. Dammen’s property was part of the former Larson Estates plat. When Larson Estates was platted in 1997 the approval stipulated that Outlots C and D would remain legally combined with the 20435 Radisson Road property; the main homestead parcel. The exception to that restriction was that the Outlots could be conveyed to abutting property owners on either side of the Outlots. Mr. Dammen now proposes to sell the property to Ian and Carol Friendly, who own the property at 5590 Shore Road. Nielsen noted this is a housekeeping matter. He stated that other than providing the Dammen property access to Christmas Lake the Outlots do not do any good from a zoning perspective. The Dammen property is well oversized for the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland district which it is located in. The Outlots will enhance the buildability of the Friendly property which is a little substandard for the zoning district it is in. This transaction will bring the property into a classification of being buildable. It would meet at least 70 percent of the lot area requirements for the R-1A district. The Dammen homestead parcel contains 1.87 acres of land. Outlot C, the northerly of the two Outlots, is undeveloped and contains 4729 square feet of area. Outlot D is occupied by a small deck and a dock and contains 5908 square feet of area. The Friendly property contains 20,819 square feet of area and is occupied by the Friendly’s home. Once combined, it will contain 31,456 square feet. He noted the right of way (ROW) for Shore Road cuts between Outlots C and D. Staff has had some discussion with a realtor about the possibility of vacating that small strip of ROW. That would be dealt with in the future if the property owners decide to do that. It would help in the buildability of the Friendly property. Nielsen stated based on the preceding, staff recommends the applicant’s request be approved subject to recording the Council resolution approving the division and combination within 30 days of their receipt of the resolution. Commissioner Maddy asked about Outlots A and B. Director Nielsen explained Outlot A is a wetland which is owned by the City. Outlot B is a small strip and it was deeded over to the property to the east of it. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision for Keenen Dammen, 20435 Radisson Road, Outlots C and D, and the combination of Outlots C and D with the property located at 5590 Shore Road subject to the division/combination being recorded within 30 days of Council approval. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng noted that this item will go before the City Council on March 10, 2014. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 4 of 24 3. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SUMMIT WOODS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT – DEVELOPMENT STAGE Applicant: Homestead Partners Location: 23040 Summit Avenue Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M. He explained that during December 2013 the Shorewood City Council approved the concept plan for the proposed Summit Woods planned unit development (PUD) for Homestead Partners LLC. That Concept Stage was the first stage in the PUD process. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the PUD during its October 1, 2013, and November 5, 2013, meetings. Some concerns were raised during the public hearings. The PUD process is in now in the Development Stage which deals with a lot of the details. The focus during this hearing will be on the development plans. The developer is seeking approval of the Development Stage plans and preliminary plat. He noted the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He clarified that any recommendation the Planning Commission makes to the Council is advisory only. He stated he anticipates this item will go before the City Council on April 14, 2014. Director Nielsen affirmed that. Geng then stated that when he opens the Public Testimony portion of this hearing he will call people who have signed up to speak in the order they are listed on the sign-in sheet. People can either choose to speak or pass on the opportunity. He asked people to keep their comments to matters that are relevant to the development plans. He also asked people not to repeat in detail any points that have already been addressed by earlier speakers. Director Nielsen stated the staff report addresses the issues in each of the nine exhibits attached to the staff report. He stated the property is located at 23040 Summit Avenue between Summit Avenue and Galpin Lake Road and it is bordered by Mayflower Road on its north edge. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained that a number of issues were raised in staff reports pertaining to the concept plan and in the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. The issues will be address during his discussion about each of the exhibits. A. Property Survey The survey shows the boundaries of the property, the location of the street pavement in front of the property, the topography on the site, and trees in the area where the houses will be located. A copy of the survey was displayed. B. Preliminary Site Plan 1. Building setbacks shown are consistent with those approved in the Concept Stage plan. a. Front Setbacks – Lot 1, 20 feet (in part due to the drop-off of that lot); Lot 2, 35 feet (the setback requirement for the R-1C zoning district); and, Lots 3 and 4, 40 feet. b. Side Setbacks – All lots have 10-foot side yard setbacks as required by the R-1C zoning district. The developer originally proposed 7.5-foot side setbacks. c. Rear Setbacks – Rear setbacks in the R-1C zoning district are 40 feet. The proposed conservation easement far exceeds the setback requirement. Half of each lot in the back will be in the conservation easement. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 5 of 24 2. Lots are shown as 70 feet in width, with the exception of Lot 2, which is shown as 69 feet. That lot will have to be adjusted to the 70-foot minimum on the final plat. 3. Each lot has been shown with a driveway pullout per staff’s previous recommendations. They allow a driver to back into the pullout and then drive front forward onto to the roadway. They are somewhat schematic on this plan. These driveway pullouts must be located at least five feet from the side lot lines. 4. The developer shows Summit Avenue being widened to 20 feet in front of the plat. That is the minimum fire code access requirement. City staff continues to explore alternatives for addressing issues raised by neighboring residents relative to the substandard condition of the road. The City Engineer has presented four alternatives for addressing Summit Avenue in Shorewood. Two of the alternatives involve making Summit Avenue a one-way roadway; one of them going down and one of them going up. That was to address concerns about not being able to easily go past a vehicle going in the opposite direction. The possibility of a cul-de-sac was also discussed for the north end basically in the bend of Summit Avenue. Staff does not like that idea primarily because it would end up with Hummingbird Road being a very long dead-end roadway. The fourth alternative was to upgrade the portion of Summit Avenue in Shorewood to Shorewood roadway standards. C. Preliminary Plat 1. Drainage and utility easements are shown as being 10 feet wide, however the side yard easements appear to measure less. The easements shown on the final plat should show easements 10 feet on each side of each lot line. 2. It is recommended that the conservation easement should be staked and clearly identified as such with identification markers. The City requires that for wetlands. 3. All lots must be at least 70 feet wide at their respective building lines. 4. Prior to release of a final plat (the next stage in the process), the developer must pay $5000 per lot for park dedication fees. Credit is given for the existing house on the property. 5. Prior to release of a final plat the developer must pay $1200 per lot for local sanitary sewer access charges. Credit is given for the existing house on the property. D. Grading and Erosion Control The City Engineer has addressed this item under separate cover. The adverse effect of drainage off of the site was one of the more significant items brought up during the public hearing particularly on to Summit Avenue. The Concept Stage plan for the project had shown rain gardens in the front yards of the proposed lots. These have been moved to the rear yards so as to direct site drainage to the east versus toward Summit Avenue. The City Engineer has noted that additional detail is needed for rain gardens and that the grading plan needs to show how stormwater runoff will be conducted to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 6 of 24 rain gardens. A more detailed grading plan needs to be submitted before the development plans go before Council on April 14. At minimum, the goal of the drainage plan is to not increase the rate or volume of runoff toward Summit Avenue. Ideally, the project will improve drainage toward the west. Based on neighborhood concerns about a possible perched water table on the site, the developer was asked to provide soil tests for the area where buildings are proposed. In a 22-page Geotechnical Evaluation Report, prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation, the engineers found no evidence of a perched water table or reason to suspect that the lots were unbuildable. The engineers have indicated that if a problem is found later it could be rectified with drain tiles. E. Tree Preservation and Reforestation The Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan on Exhibit E illustrates the construction area defined by tree protection fencing. The vast majority of trees on the property are located in the proposed conservation easement and will remain untouched. The City has not seen a project that protects as large a percentage of trees as this one does. Exhibit E-2 provides detail as to which trees within the construction area will be removed and which are to be saved. Exhibit E-3 provides a planting plan for replacement trees. Shorewood’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy requires the developer to replace eight trees per acre – 26 trees in total. The plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, provides a variety of deciduous and coniferous replacement trees. The plant schedule on Exhibit E-3 specifies 2.5-inch deciduous replacement trees. This should be corrected to indicate 3-inch caliper trees. F. Conservation Easement The draft easement shown on Exhibit F, states “Tree Conservation Easement”. The final plan submitted with the final plan stage should simply state “Conservation Easement”. G. Architectural Control Guidelines While the City does not dictate a certain size, price range or design for single-family residential projects, the developer has provided draft guidelines for the houses in order to show residents what type of houses are being proposed. H. Sample House Plans See comment in architectural control guidelines (Item G). I. Construction Management Plan Based on neighborhood concerns, particularly with respect to the use of the street during construction, the developer has provided a proposed construction management plan. Per staff’s recommendation the plan stipulates construction vehicles will have to park at least 10 feet of off of the roadway’s paved surface. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 7 of 24 Item 2 near the top of page 3 in this Plan should be changed to reflect Shorewood’s construction hours policy: 1) 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. weekdays; 2) 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturday; and, 3) no work on Sundays except with authorization from the City. The development agreement for the project will include reference to televising the streets before project construction is done to record the condition of the roadway. After the project is done it has to be televised again. The developer is responsible for repairing any damage to public streets or adjacent properties done by construction activity. Nielsen stated that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends approval of the Development Stage plans. The plans are substantially consistent with the approved Concept Stage plans. The items enumerated herein should be incorporated into the final plans for the project and into the development agreement between the developer and the City. He reiterated the City Engineer has some open ended items in his report, in particular the grading and erosion control. That needs to be resolved before this is considered by Council. Commissioner Labadie stated Exhibit D Grading and Erosion Control shows that on Lot 3 there is something called refuse. She asked what that is. Director Nielsen explained the property used to be a small horse farm and farms often had a refuse pile. That would be cleaned up as part of this development. Chair Geng stated the overall grading plan is to grade the property in such a way that stormwater runoff flows to the east away from Summit Avenue. He asked if that means the properties will be higher on the east along Summit Avenue. Director Nielsen stated the properties will be basically level with the roadway and reiterated the goal is not to have any more stormwater flow down Summit Avenue than there is today. Commissioner Maddy asked if the conservation easement form included in the meeting packet is a City form or a developer form. Director Nielsen stated the developer drafted that one and noted the City has some others it has used. Staff will compare the language. He commented that the one from the developer is quite well written regarding what can and cannot be done to the easement. Maddy asked if it would be appropriate to make recommendations about how to modify it this evening. Nielsen noted it would be. In response to a question from Commissioner Labadie, Director Nielsen explained the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan Exhibit E-2 shows which trees will be removed and which will be protected. Labadie noted that Exhibit E-3 provides a planting plan for replacement trees. She asked if the planting plan is sufficient to meet the City’s requirements. Nielsen noted it does meet the requirements. Nielsen stated per the City Code significant trees (i.e., trees with a diameter of more than 8 inches at breast height; 54 inches high) have to be replaced. The formula states that any tree with a diameter between 8 inches and 12 inches has to be replaced with two 3-inch caliber trees. Any tree with a diameter greater than or equal to 12 inches has to be replaced with three 3-inch caliber trees. The maximum exposure a developer has is 8 trees per acre. That is what the Plan shows. Jeff Shoenwetter, with JMS Custom Homes, noted he and his wife own JMS and that they will be building the houses for Homestead Partners. He displayed a photograph of the existing site. He noted that the property had originally been platted as three lots and then combined into the existing single parcel for some reason. He stated the developer is well aware that five lots could be platted instead of four without needing a variance. But he and the developer prefer four lots. They also prefer the PUD with the preservation of a significant portion of the site. Approximately 5 percent of the trees will be removed from the site. There will be approximately 95 percent preservation of the site. To their knowledge there is no other development in Shorewood that has that. He noted that generally the side yard setbacks are conforming for the R-1C zoning district. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 8 of 24 He explained that although the front yard setbacks are staggered relative to the property line all of the lots will have extremely long driveways. It will be about 70 feet from the edge of the traveled roadway surface to the houses. The traveled surface is not necessarily in the center of the right-of-way (ROW). The driveways are generally flat. The finished surface of the garages will be approximately two feet above the corresponding traveled surface of the existing street. The rear yards on the properties will be very ample; they are generous to a fault with regard to rear yard setbacks. The proposed 70-foot wide lots are fairly typical for JMS in many other communities. The architectural homes they intend to build will work extremely well on the lots. The actual lot sizes exceed the minimum size restriction in the City Ordinance by more than 50 percent. The units per acres are only 1.23; that is very low density. About 57 percent of the site is being conserved with a conservation easement in perpetuity. That is the beauty of building only four houses instead of five. The views from the street will not change much. A stormwater management plan has been prepared by the engineers. There is not a lot of additional occupancy with what is being proposed; it is only three additional dwelling units. They will not result in any significant increase in traffic trips per day on the existing public streets. He displayed a photo showing the preservation area. He noted that one corner of the site is owned by Shorewood and pointed out the area that will be preserved. He stated there had been comments made in the past the inferred that the soils would be challenging. A third party engineer was hired to review that and determined the soils will be perfect for construction. The firm did not find any perched water or high water table. He noted that the additional PUD standards requested regarding construction management, restrictive covenants, rain gardens and rain garden maintenance have all been incorporated into the PUD application. He displayed an artistic rendering in a three dimensional format. He noted the conforming plat is their fallback position. They think that what is being considered this evening is a far superior plan relative to the site. He commented that his customers like to live next to a park or conservation area or something like that. He explained Shorewood’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan which was updated in 2008 talks about natural resources and land use objectives. The 2008 update encourages developers and builders to come to the City with “… Creative development design to ensure the protection and enhancement of those portions of the community containing unique physical features (e.g., topography, woodlands, etc.). Additionally “… Shorewood’s trees and vegetation are valuable assets and consideration should be given to their preservation and protection.”. And “… Where feasible, natural open space areas shall be obtained through conservation easements, acquisition or development regulation.” He thought those will be achieved with the PUD that is being proposed. The Natural Resources and Land Use Policies in the Comp Plan state the use of planned unit development concepts shall be considered where the protection of natural resources is important. That greatly influenced how they approached the site. It also states that the conservation easements and similar methods of preserving open space shall be pursued such that the areas remain undisturbed indefinitely. The documents submitted by Homestead Partners does that; it protects the 80,000 plus square feet of the site. He noted the reason the PUD zoning tool is suitable for this site is it encourages preservation of natural features. That is what is being proposed. He stated that during October 2013 the City staff’s initial review of the project in concept stated they thought “ … Summit Woods is exactly the type PUD project for which the PUD tool was intended. And, that it must be remembered that the property owner has a right to develop the property under the rules established by the City. However, in this instance the PUD approach is considered to be far superior to traditional platting.” CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 9 of 24 Mr. Shoenwetter stated they are here tonight to ask for permission to build the homes in the configuration that has been submitted. He then stated there has been a lot of input from City staff and other professionals over the last several months. He went on to state as the snow melts they want to be in a position to build. Chair Geng asked if Mr. Shoenwetter has had an opportunity to review the staff report and the City Engineer’s report. Mr. Shoenwetter responded he has. Geng noted that a number of details were flagged and he asked Mr. Shoenwetter if any of them were of concern to him. Mr. Shoenwetter noted not that he is aware of and stated that most of them are normal housekeeping that would be dealt with during the final platting process. For example, the one lot that is 69 feet wide will be adjusted because another is 74 feet wide. The mathematical calculations will be corrected properly. Geng asked that all of the flagged items be addressed before this goes before the City Council. He then asked if that would be doable before April 14. Mr. Shoenwetter stated he thought it was the intent to make all of the revisions required at this time by staff over the next three weeks well in advance of the City Council meeting. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. Krisan Osterby, 6271 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated she lives just south of the PUD site on the same side of Hummingbird Road. She noted there is still the potential for an additional house north of the PUD site. There are two lots directly south in Chanhassen that are also being considered for development. Therefore, there could potentially be the impact of seven houses; not just the four in the PUD. She stated she appreciates having the driveway pull-outs. But, it appears they will go into the setbacks and almost touch the property line. The pull-outs would also be over the easements between the houses for the rain gardens. She asked that pull-outs be clearly considered and integrated into the pull-out plan and documented as to how they will work with side yard setbacks for each of the properties. She expressed concern about the location of the driveway on the northerly lot [Lot 1] and she asked that consideration be given to shifting it off of the corner. She noted she would like to have signage demarcating the conservation area because that is the value of the PUD. She stated she has read about homeowners who have cut down trees in conservation areas because the areas were not properly marked. She encouraged there be a covenant put in place so there is a large gap between where the graded area ends and where the conservation easement begins. Without it there would be nothing that would prevent property owners from cutting down trees on their properties close to the conservation area. She asked if there is a public value to the conservation such as a trail or public access along Galpin Lake Road or above, below or in the middle of the slope. She thought it prudent to clarify that. She stated she would like to extend the park dedication fee to the existing house because that house is going to be destroyed. She noted that she agrees that all of the grading and erosion control concerns should be addressed before Council considers the Development Stage plans; particularly where walls are required to make the grading work. She stated if there ends up being a covenant she suggested it require the walls be of natural material. She explained when she hears riprap she interprets it to mean that the walls could be different from property to property and that they could be a concrete material rather than a boulder material. She asked that specifics about the walls, including their maintainability, be provided before the City Council meeting when this is considered. She stated she is pleased to hear there are not problems with the soils on the site. There have been problems with the soils along the Chanhassen border. She then stated if drain tile will be used proactively CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 10 of 24 it should be very clear in the grading plan that it is tied to the rain gardens. She suggested the City, if possible, ask that chain-link fencing be used for tree protection during construction. She asked that the rain gardens and their grading be overlaid with the Tree Preservation Plan to ensure consistency. She suggested the landscaping plan specify a clear preference to plant trees that will be full-canopy, large shade trees to respect the character of the neighborhood. Maple, oak or basswood trees would be more valuable to the neighborhood over time than coniferous trees would be. She clarified the trees she is talking about would be adjacent to the conservation area or the street. She then stated she has not seen anything showing the potential home elevations in a true elevation along the street. She would like to see something, other than in a plan view, that shows the true relation of the home elevations are to the changing grade on the street especially as the grade goes down to the north. She noted children walk on Hummingbird Road to the bus stop for the elementary school. And, in that neighborhood all of the children walk to Minnetonka Middle School because there is no bus for them. She asked that there be some consideration given to having truck access times be later on Monday through Friday. She then noted that while it is a fine idea to increase Summit Avenue to 20 feet wide in front of the plat that does not adequately address the issue of access to that neighborhood unless Summit Avenue is widened all the way up or Hummingbird Road is widened. Access to the neighborhood will not meet fire code requirements. She stated when she lost her home to fire Summit Avenue could not be used for a second point of access. Ms. Osterby thanked the Planning Commission for allowing her extra time to make her comments. Marilyn Zupnik, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that she lives across the roadway from the Rix property in Chanhassen and across from the PUD site. She stated that although the PUD is only for four houses she understands that ultimately seven will be built in the neighborhood. She commented the most northerly lot is marked for future development. There is a blind curve there coming from both directions. She expressed concern that in the proposed PUD you cannot see the driveway for the most northerly lot [Lot 1] when coming up the hill. She then expressed concern about the increase in traffic which she thinks will be almost 50 percent; there are 14 houses now and there would be six more houses added [four in Shorewood and two in Chanhassen]. She stated because the area is small where the proposed houses are to be located the houses will be very close together. That is different than for the other houses in the neighborhood. She questioned why the character needs to change. She stated if there were one or two fewer houses it could still be a beautiful setting. She clarified she is not opposed to building there. She has always known there would be some building there; she has lived in the neighborhood since 1990. She stated she is not in favor of building so many more houses so close to the roadway. She thought if they were built back further from the roadway it would help. She wants things to remain consistent with what is already in the neighborhood regarding space around the houses. Ms. Zupnik thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak on this and she asked that her concerns be taken into consideration. Lea Foli, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. He noted that Mr. Shoenwetter had earlier pointed out that the original plat for the property was for three lots. He asked how and when it changed to four. Director Nielsen explained at one time the property was platted as three lots and they were eventually combined into one parcel of land which is what exists today. Homestead Partners is proposing a plat of four lots on that one parcel. He asked if the developer and builder would consider three houses instead of four houses for the PUD. He stated he thought doing CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 11 of 24 that would alleviate many of the problems. He commented that he thought that more problems have come to light as people have become more familiar with what is being proposed. He stated if the northern most house were not built leaving only three houses all of the problems at the curve in Summit Avenue would be eliminated. For example, there would be more space for the other three lots and there would not be concerns about turn-outs being close to the property line. And, it could be possible to have one common driveway off of Summit Avenue instead of four. He stated people have sat through long PowerPoint presentations dealing with densities and acreages and so forth. In spite of that when the Concept Stage plan was consider by the City Council for second time the Concept Stage plan was approved. He asked why three houses is not viable option to replace the four- lot PUD that is proposed. Vicki Franzen, 6260 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, expressed her appreciation for the work that has been done to date to address many of the residents’ concerns. She noted she shares many of the concerns that have already been stated. She stated from her perspective sufficient attention has not been given to the safety issues of Summit Avenue and Hummingbird Road. She noted that earlier in the meeting Mr. Shoenwetter had indicated the additional four houses will not result in a significant increase to traffic. The addition of seven houses will significantly increase the traffic from her perspective because that will be nearly a 50 percent increase. She stated everyone agrees that Summit Avenue is substandard. She suggested a traffic study be done to address the impact of the additional traffic on Summit Avenue given its current condition. She stated if the roadway needs to be improved then that should be included in this plan. She stated the study needs to happen before the development begins. She noted she believes safety is a paramount issue on Summit Avenue. She thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Alex Petrosian, 850 Saddlebrook Pass, Chanhassen, stated he owns the property located at 23130 Summit Avenue which is next to the PUD site. He stated his number one concern is the roadway. He asked how that is going to be addressed. He stated this evening Director Nielsen listed off the four options staff has discussed for improving the roadway. He did not think any of them are viable. One of the options was to make the portion of Summit Avenue in Shorewood wider. He then stated he agrees there needs to be a traffic study done about the impact of seven additional houses; it should be ordered by the City. He stated from a fire access perspective on substandard roads he suggested that sprinkler systems be installed in the new houses. He commented that the fire department in Excelsior recommended he sprinkle the home he intends to build on his Summit Avenue property because there is not enough access to it. He then stated that in previous discussions about this PUD he heard the Chanhassen watermain would be extended to the PUD site. Yet, during discussions about the two sites in Chanhassen he heard that wells will be drilled for each of the PUD houses. He thought it would be worthwhile for those four houses to be connected to municipal water. He noted that he did not see in the plans how the sewer system will be handled. He would like to know how the extension will be done – though his property or under/along Summit Avenue. He noted he would like to see all the plans finalized before they come to the Planning Commission. He would like to know what the rain gardens will look like. If they are real they should be approved by the City Engineer and the Planning Department. Then residents could comment on them. He stated Mr. Shoenwetter had indicated that the four-house PUD is much superior when compared to the five houses that could be built on the site. From his perspective he did not think five houses could be built CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 12 of 24 until the property is subdivided. Therefore, he did not think that was a true representation of the facts because the property has not been subdivided into five lots. Mr. Petrosian thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Laura Liedtke, 6231 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that she lives adjacent to the Rix property in Chanhassen that will be developed. She stated from her perspective the Planning Commission and the City Council are charged with making a decision about protecting people’s public safety as well as development decisions. She recommended public safety be taken into consideration. She stated that was not talked about during the Planning Director’s presentation and the builder’s presentation; it was blatantly absent. Safety is truly a big issue and it is troubling to her that it has not been talked about. She then stated she has seen numerous cars slide back down Summit Avenue. She saw two teenagers and another car almost go over the edge this winter when going down Hummingbird Road. From her vantage point to add more residential traffic would be irresponsible. She expressed concern that the safety of Shorewood residents would be compromised by this proposed development. If it was justifiable to hire a third party to investigate the soils, it should be justifiable to hire a third party to investigate the traffic and safety of the roadway. She thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Sondra Traylor, 23115 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, noted she lives across from the proposed development at the blind curve. She stated she applauds what her neighbors have already said about safety. She then stated recently the one of Chanhassen’s plow trucks was being driven down Hummingbird Road and stopped and started to back up into her small parking area. She went out to speak with him. The driver was speaking with his supervisor and explaining that the curve was unsafe and he thought he might slide off into the trees. The driver asked for permission to back up Hummingbird Road in order to avoid getting into an accident going around the curve of Summit Avenue. People know that going downhill on Summit Avenue around the curve when the roadway is slippery is a challenge. From her perspective it would not be a good idea to make it one-way going down. To make it one-way going up is not feasible because it is hard for drivers to drive up. Putting in a cul-de-sac would make it unsafe because of fire service access needs. She expressed concern that the driveways for Lot 1 and Lot 2 are in the blind line of sight at the curve in Summit Avenue. She stated that children in the neighborhood play on the streets; it is a low traffic area. Children living in the new houses will probably play in their front yards. She expressed concern about what could happen if a child’s ball accidently goes onto the street at the blind curve and they go to retrieve it. And, concern for their pets and the people who drive on Summit Avenue. The safety issue is paramount. She stated if someone were to build even just three new houses on the site having an access as far away as possible from the curve nearly on the Chanhassen/County line for one driveway that would access any homes built in that area would be preferable for safety reasons. Drainage for that one driveway needs to be to the east. It should not flow down Summit Avenue because when it is cold and freezes it creates a hazard. Because the curve is tree lined it takes longer for ice on the roadway to melt. The curve is banked outward. She explained she was recently driving down Summit Avenue when it was slippery and she applied her brakes at the blind curve and the back end of her car slid to the right and she ended up facing her property. Fortunately, there were no cars approaching the curve. She stated that safety has to be addressed. Ms.Traylor thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 13 of 24 Elizabeth Birkland Daub, 6180 Murray Hill Road, Shorewood, stated the commonsense and reasonableness that has been conveyed this evening by members of the community about issues such as safety and fire has impressed her. She expressed concern about stormwater runoff flowing down Summit Avenue because she lives at the intersection of Summit Avenue and Murray Hill Road. She noted that her property has been flooded twice. She lost all of her pictures of her family both times. She questioned if anyone can guarantee that the rain gardens will adequately handle the stormwater. She stated it is disturbing to her that things have gone to this level. She noted that the City has gone to great lengths to repair Murray Hill Road and to put storm sewer in. She stated from her perspective the stormwater management issue is not being adequately discussed. She thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Jason Mills, 6281 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, asked if the City or JMS has had a detailed, professional traffic study done about the roadway. Chair Geng responded no. Mr. Mills specifically asked that the City or JMS to have a detailed, professional traffic study done that will look at the traffic and include the four proposed houses in Shorewood and the two proposed houses in Chanhassen. He stated unfortunately he and the other members of that neighborhood are dealing with a development that spans two cities. Based on his observations of what has occurred regarding the two proposed developments he draws the conclusion that the two cities do not like to work together that well. He stated that a number of questions have been asked by the residents but no one is answering them on the spot. From his vantage point the residents have not gotten answers about this PUD in the past. He thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Nate Schimiechen, 22785 Murray Street, Shorewood, noted the back of his home overlooks the hill. He stated that he does not think it is appropriate to include the proposed conservation easement in density discussions. He commented Summit Avenue is his favorite spot to go for a walk with his wife. They like to go up Summit Avenue and down Hummingbird Road. He stated there is a lot of wildlife that comes down that hill. He then stated there will be a lot of hard surface both for the driveways and roof tops that will result in stormwater runoff going down Summit Avenue and down the hill side. He expressed concern about the environmental impact. He noted he agrees completely with having a covenant to protect the area between the houses and the conservation easement so that the trees are not taken down. He commented that two owners of his property prior to him brought in 27 trucks loads of dirt. He stated they moved to where they live because of the beauty in the area and the low density of homes. He thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Shoenwetter stated at times it is difficult to be the builder. You often feel you’re misunderstood and the neighbors want to demonize the change and tonight he is the villain. He noted that his company JMS has been successful enough to survive three recessions. JMS has been building great homes in great communities for 28 years. One of JMS’ very early plats was in Shorewood on Galpin Lake. That was 27 years ago. He then stated he thought all of the points made are thoughtful but they are somewhat misunderstood. He explained the Rix family selected his company because the family knew JMS would do a good job. Originally the Rix family asked him to pursue five conforming lots on the site. The family thought they were entitled to secure that. He talked the family into the PUD in order to preserve the bluff. From his perspective what is being proposed is a better plan. He explained based on where the existing driveway to the Rix home is he has shifted the proposed driveways to the south. Although Summit Avenue curves he has found the site lines to be safe; better than many other areas in Shorewood. He noted that a traffic study is not required for a plat of this size and requiring one would be unprecedented. He explained per industry standards there are about seven trips per CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 14 of 24 day per single-family home. But, a stay-at-home mom with six children that goes to and from sports might make more than seven trips a day. An empty nester, a single professional, a widow and widower might make one trip a day. Therefore, four houses would result in about 28 trips per day. He then explained the City was provided an engineered grading plan that will route stormwater to the east. There should not be any more water flowing to the property that has flooded twice. That property is to the west of the proposed project. He noted that JMS is concerned with public safety as well. It is also concerned with creating good homes for good neighbors. He stated it is his belief that the houses will be beautiful. And, he assumes the people who purchase those properties will be good neighbors. He explained that all of the houses will be connected to Shorewood’s sanitary sewer system. There will either be four water wells for the four houses or there may be one well that is shared by the four houses. Either way the sanitary water supply to the four houses will be consistent with the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health and the requirements of the City of Shorewood. He noted there will be other redevelopment in Chanhassen and Shorewood in the future on areas that flank the PUD site. JMS has been approached during this process by other property owners with properties less than a few 100 feet away where the lots could easily be changed into more than one dwelling. JMS has no interest in pursuing single lot splits on those streets at this time. He stated the request for planting oak, basswood and maple trees can be accommodated if it pleases the City. He noted that he has built a home without drain tile. He explained the drain tile systems on four lots will largely be passive. When there is a power outage the drain tile systems will still work. He stated he will ask his engineers to overlay the Tree Preservation Plan, grading plan and rain garden. Although it is not required, it will likely enhance people’s understanding of how much thought has gone into this. He then stated there was discussion about additional tree preservation. He expressed concern about putting too onerous of a requirement on those who purchase the properties. Those people will have uses for their back yards just like the people present this evening. He stated everyone has a right to private, peaceful enjoyment of their back yard. The proposed back yards are not excessively large, but the space between the back of the houses and the conservation easement is exceptionally larger than most conforming plats. He went on to state that a comment was made about the lots to the south in Chanhassen are even smaller and tighter. He clarified that is not true. The lots in Chanhassen are 90 feet wide. The side yard setbacks will be the same as in Shorewood and that is 10 feet. He stated JMS will design the conservation easement signage and have it logoed and it will be put in at the required increments. That is the right thing to do. The conservation easement is part of the proposition to its future customers that nothing will be built behind their houses. And, that the wooded hillside will remain in perpetuity. Mr. Shoenwetter reiterated JMS will do its very best to build very good homes. He noted that construction traffic will be minimized to whatever extend possible. And, JMS will follow the City’s ordinances. JMS wants to have a safe community as well. He asked the neighbors to trust that he is not the demon developer. He thanked everyone for the opportunity to share his thoughts about the very thoughtful comments made this evening. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 15 of 24 Heidi Welbig, 6291 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated if you want to build a good neighborhood with good houses in a safe environment she asked why you wouldn’t build nicer houses and fewer of them which would be more consistent with the existing neighborhood. She then stated there would not be all of the issues there are with the PUD if fewer houses were built. She asked if building one more house is worth that much more money. Ms. Franzen stated she understood Mr. Shoenwetter to say JMS has never had any issues with any of JMS’ customers. She stated it’s her understanding there are have been a number of issues with other cities. She asked him to address that. Ms. Osterby stated she does not think 95 percent of tree preservation can be used if 95 percent of the trees are in the conservation area. Credit cannot be given to that. She then stated in Chanhassen those trees would be preserved by Chanhassen. She questioned the statement that it is not reasonable to have a covenant to protect additional trees in the back yards since that is a standard the rest of the neighborhood embraces. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:14 P.M. Commissioner Davis stated she agrees that the grading plan is totally inadequate. She noted she works for an engineering firm but she is not an engineer. She stated the firm she works for would never present what the applicant’s engineer has presented for a preliminary plat. She has drawn drainage arrows on the plan and they are not going to the rain gardens; they are going down the hill. She asked Director Nielsen if a better grading plan would have to be produced for the final plat. Nielsen clarified that has to be done before the Development Stage plan goes to Council. Davis then stated the schematics on the grading plan are different than those on the landscaping plan. Things are different from page to page. She noted she is not in support of what is being proposed and never has been. She stated from her perspective four houses are too many for the bluff; she prefers three. She then stated the grading plan shows drain tile going out to the middle of the hill with the riprap. If that really happens the stormwater would go out to the middle of the hill and then down the hill. From her perspective the grading plan needs a lot more thought. She asked where the nearest fire hydrant is. She explained the City is redoing the roadway where she lives. There is a cul-de-sac that has to be widened as part of the project for fire access reasons. The width of Summit Avenue that is being asked for in front of the plat is not close to the width being asked for where she lives for a reconstruct. She stated she has a hard time understanding the need to build four more large houses that will results in drivers making an additional 28 vehicle trips per day on the roadway. She asked how deep the wells will have to be drilled. Commissioner Maddy noted that someone in the audience indicated wells on the adjacent properties are 200 – 300 feet deep. Commissioner Labadie stated if the PUD was to be approved as submitted she asked what the construction time frame would be from start to finish. Mr. Shoenwetter stated he expects all four houses to be built within a one year period. For the time from permit to certificate of occupancy JMS runs a 105 day construction schedule. Labadie clarified the Summit Woods PUD that is being discussed is for four houses not seven. She explained it is the Planning Commission’s responsibility is to make a recommendation on the Development Stage plans or request additional information. She noted she has concerns about the grading CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 16 of 24 plan. She also has concerns about the construction traffic which is going to occur around school times. The construction hours identified are consistent with the City Code. The proposed setbacks comply with the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of one which has to be adjusted. The project has to be considered as a whole. At this time she has concerns about what is being proposed as a whole. She noted she is confused about where the stormwater runoff is going to go. She stated that from her perspective the Planning Commission needs more information before it can make a recommendation. She clarified she is not trying to continually kick this back to the builder and developer. She stated that what is being considered is a big deal to the City and to the neighborhood. She reiterated that to make the best informed decision she needs more information. Pete Knaeble, with Terra Engineering which is the engineer for the project, stated they have been working with the City Engineer about the grading plan. An outside stormwater management consult has been hired and that person developed the hydrology modeling for the area. That individual has a lot of experience with rain garden design and came up with the sizes for the rain gardens, the drainage areas and the drainage patterns for the site. He clarified the plan is in the preliminary design stage. They are not construction grade drawings; they are preliminary grading drawings. He explained the design that showed up in the stormwater report was reviewed by the City Engineer. The City Engineer thought that based on the study the rate and volume of stormwater runoff will be reduced off of the site. The intent of the grading plan and the stormwater management plan is to direct the majority of the stormwater that hits the site to the rain gardens prior to discharge. The intent is to have the stormwater infiltrate and not run down the hill. He noted it is not possible for this proposed development or any other development to keep all water from flowing on to the street. He also noted they are not claiming to solve the drainage problems in the neighborhood. The drainage coming off of the site will be improved. The PUD will be a four lot development in a neighborhood of many lots. Mr. Knaeble stated that they will provide additional detail before this is considered by Council. He clarified that usually happens at the construction design phase. He noted they have been working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) engineer, the City Engineer and their stormwater management consultant on this. He believes a plan has been developed that will meet the MCWD’s and the City’s requirements. Commissioner Davis asked who the consultant is. Mr. Knaeble responded the stormwater management modeling is being done through the Civil Site Group. Commissioner Maddy stated during the Public Testimony portion of this Public Hearing there were comments made about public access to the conservation area. He clarified the way the easement is written is it is still private property; it is not public property. Trees cannot be taken down on it. It cannot be disturbed or changed in other ways. Non-native invasive vegetation and dead vegetation and debris can be removed from the site. The property owner that purchases a lot will own part of the area but they cannot do anything to it other than what is allowed in the easement. Maddy then stated the comments about wanting just three lots and not four has already been put to rest. The Concept Stage plan approved by City Council was for four lots. He does not think the number of lots is germane to this conversation. He asked Director Nielsen if staff has had conversation with representatives from Chanhassen about it extending its watermain and putting fire hydrants up there. Nielsen explained staff did meet with Chanhassen staff and Chanhassen’s original desire was to extend its watermain across the plat and down the hill and loop the watermain. But, once they found out it would not be looped Chanhassen lost interest in extending it. Nielsen noted the City does not have any plans to extend water down Summit Avenue. He explained there would not be enough users there to pay for it and CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 17 of 24 it would only serve two more houses. Therefore, the developer is proposing the PUD be serviced by a well(s). He stated if the ultimate goal is for Chanhassen to loop its watermain then doing 300 feet now would mean that 300 feet would not have to be done later. Maddy noted he was trying to come up with a motion to put forth. But, he came up with a list of 30 some things that need to be resolved. The City Engineer identified a long list of items that needs to be resolved. Most of them would normally be dealt with in the Final Plan Stage of the PUD process. Chair Geng stated he does not think that is a fair characterization to say there are 30 some holes. He explained a lot of the matters flagged by staff are relatively minor and they can be addressed in fairly short order. Others may take some additional engineering work. He suggested a motion refer satisfactorily addressing the group of items listed in Director Nielsen’s staff report and in the City Engineer’s memorandum subject to their satisfaction before this matter goes to the City Council. And, if that cannot be accomplished by April 14 so be it. Or, the Planning Commission could delay making a recommendation until the applicant comes back with information showing the items have been addressed or there is a plan to address them. He noted that earlier he had asked Mr. Shoenwetter if he thought any of the items would be problematic and the answer was no. He clarified he would like them addressed before this goes to City Council. He noted it is the Council’s decision that counts. He suggested the developer resubmit the plans to address the items identified by Nielsen and the City Engineer to their satisfaction before sending it to Council. Commissioner Maddy stated he agrees with Chair Geng’s concept. He asked if any concerns the Planning Commission talked about this evening are not in Director Nielsen’s report or in the City Engineer’s memorandum. For example, is easement demarcation included? If not it needs to be added. Otherwise all of his concerns were identified by Director Nielsen or the City Engineer. Ms. Liedtke stated during the Council meeting when this was last considered Mayor Zerby noted that Council was just considering approval of the Concept Stage plan. It is her understanding that during the Development Stage the Planning Commission and Council can help guide what the PUD would be like. She asked what the process is because she does not think the all of the residents in the neighborhood understand what the Commission’s role is and what their role is with regard to influencing what happens with the PUD. She stated the train may have left the station regarding the number of houses but it has not left the station for a number of other things. She asked where the influence happens and when. Chair Geng clarified concerns about the Concept Stage plan have left the station. The City Council approved that in December 2013. What is being discussed this evening is the Development Stage plan. And the next stage is the Final Plan Stage and that comes before any construction begins. Even before any permits are issued. If the City Council approves the final plat the properties are then marketed and houses can be built. Geng explained the members of the Planning Commission are residents of Shorewood and their job is in part to help develop a record of facts as they pertain to planning and development. The Commission’s recommendations are not binding; they are purely recommendations. At least as important to the Commission’s recommendation is what gets the Commission to its recommendation. That is the process the Commission is going through now. The City is required by State law to hold public hearings on items like the PUD to give residents an opportunity to be heard. The Commission has definitely provided that opportunity. He clarified that hearing residents’ concerns is an important part of the informative process. He noted that Council does read what is included in the record – the minutes, the staff reports and the information provided as part of the application. He stated everyone exerts influence to the extent they are involved in the process. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 18 of 24 Ms. Liedtke stated that maybe influence was not the right choice of word. She then stated it was her understanding that the PUD was considered to be a good option because it allowed for the City Council to have greater influence over what happens with the development. Chair Geng explained that a PUD is a zoning tool and it is used widely by municipalities all over the country. One of the advantages of a PUD is that a PUD project can be influenced in ways that you can’t with a standard conforming plat. There is generally some give and take in that process. In this case there will be a conservation easement in perpetuity over 57 percent of the entire parcel. That is significant and a benefit to all of Shorewood. Director Nielsen stated with regard to the staff reports and the City Engineer’s reports they are the purpose of the Development Stage plans. He explained that in the Final Plan Stage the developer takes whatever is approved by Council in the Development Stage and puts that into construction drawings and a development agreement for the project. A lot of the 17 items, along with some sub items, listed in the City Engineer’s report are just statements. The biggest issue is the City Engineer does not think the grading plan is adequate. Being grading is such a significant issue staff does not think it is unreasonable to ask for a more thorough grading plan in this stage of the PUD process. Nielsen stated he thinks it would be reasonable to continue this hearing to the Planning Commission’s April 1 meeting. That would give the developer’s engineers adequate time to refine the grading plan so that it satisfies the City Engineer’s recommendations and concerns. The Development Stage plans would then be considered by Council during its April 14 meeting. He noted a lot of items identified will be addressed in the construction drawings and maybe that can be noted on the Development Stage plans. Nielsen went on to state staff will continue to work with Chanhassen staff about possibly extending its watermain 300 feet but the City cannot force that issue. Staff continues to discuss the four alternatives for improving Summit Avenue. If this project never happened the City would still be assessing how to improve Summit Avenue based on what residents have said. He noted Council is not taking the issues with Summit Avenue lightly. He stated roadway issues and drainage have been influenced by residents in the neighborhood. The drainage will be routed to the east; not down Summit Avenue. The grading plan needs to be enhanced so that people are convinced of that and somehow flag items that will be addressed in the construction plans. Commissioner Davis noted that several people mentioned the possibility of a shared driveway for the four houses. She asked Mr. Shoenwetter if JMS and Homestead Partners have thought about that. Director Nielsen explained that has been considered and that would basically amount to a parallel road. Staff does not recommend doing that. Director Nielsen stated a lot of what the PUD is trying to do is stay away from the wooded hillside. He then stated he will ask the City Engineer to be at the April 1 Planning Commission meeting. He noted the Engineer had offered to be here this evening. But, he thought the Engineer’s memorandum spoke for itself. Chair Geng stated he thought it would be prudent to continue this Public Hearing to the Planning Commission’s April 1. He noted he would like to be provided with a more detailed grading plan. That would be of benefit to all involved. Commissioner Maddy asked if it would be reasonable to say there is a list of mostly small things that need to be addressed because the City Engineer and Planning Director think they can be overcome and CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 19 of 24 then move this along. He stated if those items can be adequately addressed then the Planning Commission can recommend approval. Commissioner Davis stated the Development Stage plans were not ready for the Planning Commission’s February 5 meeting. An extra month was needed to get them done. Commissioner Maddy noted the City Engineer’s memo is dated February 26, 2014. He stated he does not know how much work has been done on addressing the Engineer’s concerns and recommendations, which are mostly minor, since then. In a comment made by Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen clarified the structure schematics on the grading plan are illustrative only and they are just the building pad. Commissioner Davis asked that things be made consistent among all of the Development Stage plans. Commissioner Labadie stated she does not think it is unreasonable to request more information and discuss this again. Commissioner Maddy stated the City would never issue a building permit for the level of plans submitted for the Development Stage. He asked if the level of detail required for construction plans is needed for this stage. Chair Geng noted the final plat which is during the Final Plan Stage of the PUD process does not go before the Planning Commission. It goes directly to the City Council. Mr. Shoenwetter stated the Development Stage plans have just been discussed for the last 2.5 hours and there has been some spirited conversation. He commented that he is thinking about what he is going to tell the Rix family tomorrow morning about tonight’s proceedings. He explained that it is his understanding that the level of detail, which is significantly more than conceptual at this point, that has been submitted and reviewed by various experts would comply with all of the requirements of a developer’s application at this stage. The fixes, repairs, corrections and edits are part of the traditional process. After the City Council takes action on the information in front of the Planning Commission that repair list will be handled administratively and critiqued by City staff. During his 28 years in this business he does not think he has ever had less than twelve ticks on a list of fixes. Sometimes there have been significantly more based on the size of the development. Mr. Shoenwetter stated to continue this just to get a more detailed grading plan when their engineer has given testimony that the water will drain to the east seems unnecessary. Their experts have concluded that as well. He noted the first meeting they had with City staff was in July or August of 2013. He asked that all of the requirements of all of the experts that are included in the meeting packet be requisite. And that the standards of development be adhered to as far as what his engineers and the City’s engineers collaborate on in an orderly, normal course of business. He stated he understands they are being asked to bring the plans to the final stage so everyone can agree they are finalized. But, he does not have a final plan from City Council yet. The Planning Commission is asking him and the Rix family to do all of this extra homework under the assumption that something won’t change later. He then stated he thinks that the application and the comments that people have requested be incorporated have been agreed to. The question is when should that homework be submitted and to whom. Their engineer has stated his homework will be updated based on the comments from the City Engineer, which are less than five business days old, before it goes to City Council on April 14. He thinks it is appropriate to instruct their engineer to get his homework done in the normal course of business just like for any plat. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 20 of 24 Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if he is satisfied that Development Stage plans are what they should be at this stage in the PUD process. Nielsen stated in his report staff’s recommendation is to recommend approval of the Development Stage plans subject to incorporating the items identified in the memorandums from him and the City Engineer both dated February 26, 2014, into the final plans. Nielsen then stated the Commission could make a recommendation about approval of the plans subject to conditions. Or, if the Commission wants to see a more detailed grading plan before making a recommendation it can do that also. Chair Geng noted he is not an engineer and does not have any engineering training. Therefore, he does not know why he needs to see the grading plan again. He noted he would be comfortable making a recommendation subject to the items identified in the memorandums being addressed to Director Nielsen’s and the City Engineer’s satisfaction prior to Council considering the Development Stage plans on April 14. He stated City Engineer Hornby is a lot more qualified than he is to evaluate if a plan is adequate for the Development Stage of PUD process. He stated he would support a motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage plans subject to the items identified by Nielsen and Hornby being addressed to their satisfaction for this stage in the PUD process. Maddy moved, Geng seconded, recommending approval of the Summit Woods Planned Unit Development - Development Stage plans subject to the Planning Director’s and the City Engineer’s recommendations being addressed to their satisfaction and to adding a requirement for conservation easement boundary markers that will be visible in snow and brush. Motion failed 2/2 with Davis and Labadie dissenting. Commissioner Davis stated she believes that it is the Planning Commission’s job to do the homework for members of the Council because they have enough meetings to attend and things to do. Commissioner Labadie stated no one on the Planning Commission is an engineer. Yet the Planning Commission wants the developer/builder to submit a detailed grading plan prior to sending the Development Stage plans to Council for consideration. Commissioner Davis stated that would leave it up to Council to do the homework. Commissioner Maddy clarified that leaves it up to the Planning Director and the City Engineer to do the homework. Chair Geng noted the City Council has to take all of the information gathered into consideration. Director Nielsen stated it appears a continuation of the Public Hearing is in order. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for the Summit Woods Planned Unit Development - Development Stage plans to the Planning Commission’s April 1, 2014, meeting and submitting the revised grading plan and other plans for review. Council Liaison Sundberg asked if doing that will keep things on track for the April 14, 2014, Council meeting. Director Nielsen responded it would. Commissioner Labadie stated if Council is not going to consider the Development Stage plans until April 14, 2014, anyway continuing the hearing will not delay things. Director Nielsen clarified the expectation is that the engineer will be able to tell the Planning Commission about the revised grading plan. He will confirm that the stormwater will flow to the east and into the rain gardens and overflows to the east. Commissioner Davis added and that the rain gardens are appropriately placed and the planting list revised. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 21 of 24 In response to a comment from the audience, it was noted that the updated materials will be available on the City’s website no later than March 28, 2014. In response to a comment from the audience, Chair Geng explained the Public Testimony portion of this Public Hearing has been closed. It will be up to the Commission if it will take public input on April 1. He clarified that he is not saying that will happen. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng thanked everyone for coming. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 10:05 P.M. Chair Geng recessed the meeting at 10:05 P.M. Chair Geng reconvened the meeting at 10:18 P.M. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS A. Commissioner Attendance Director Nielsen explained that Chair Geng sent out an email informing the Planning Commissioners that the City Council has reduced the size of both the Planning Commission and Park Commission to five members. Part of the reason is due to the lack of applicants. There had been one applicant for the Planning Commission and former Commissioner Garelick was willing to serve again. There was a shortage of applicants for the Park Commission. The reduction in size has been discussed before. A number of years ago the size of the Planning Commission had been five. He noted that the Commissioners found a copy of the ordinance regarding the Planning Commission at the dais this evening. He then explained that the Council has been concerned about the attendance requirement for both Commissions. The Ordinance currently states that basically a Commissioner could miss half of the meetings. He thought people believe that is too liberal. He asked the Commission to give some thought to what a reasonable number of missed meetings would be for a year. Commissioner Davis stated people were talking about that before the meeting started. She commented that she thought it would be interesting to see what people’s attendance has been over the last two years. She stated there are personal and business things that do come up that result in people missing meetings. Commissioner Labadie cautioned against making the attendance requirement too strict because it is already difficult to find applicants. She noted that she will miss the April 1, 2014, meeting because her family will be out of the State on vacation. And, she will also miss the May 6, 2014, meeting because her daughter has an orchestra concert. She stated she has been on the Commission for more than a year and to date she has only missed the July 2013 meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 22 of 24 Commissioner Davis stated the Commissioners have been forewarned when there is likely to be a very controversial topic on the agenda. Commissioner Labadie stated Commissioner Muehlberg needs to attend to the family matter that requires his attention. Commissioner Davis stated Commissioner Muehlberg also drives the school bus on Tuesdays. She then stated her husband has the same job and he works at the food shelve on Wednesdays and her husband lets people know that he cannot drive bus on Wednesdays. She thought people can let others know they cannot work on the first Tuesday of the month because that is when the Planning Commission meetings are generally held. Commissioner Maddy suggested requiring Commissioners to attend two-thirds of the meetings. And, if something comes up where a person misses one-third of the meetings then Council should make a judgment call. It should not result in an automatic removal. Chair Geng states the Ordinance also states that failure to attend four consecutive regular meetings without excuse of the Chair shall be considered formal notice of resignation. He suggested tying all absences to without adequate excuse and those with adequate excuse will not be counted. Commissioner Labadie stated it makes it more difficult with only five members. She indicated she wished Council would have consulted with the Commission. Especially knowing that former Commissioner Garelick was willing to do it and that there was a qualified candidate. Commissioner Maddy stated that doesn’t change the policy part because 50 percent of seven is still not a quorum. Director Nielsen reiterated that there is the provision about excused by the Chair. Chair Geng stated if there is not a quorum he asked if that could potentially cause problems because of the 60-day rule. Director Nielsen stated that can be worked around. Director Nielsen again asked the Commissioners to give attendance some thought before the April meeting. He noted he will check and see how some other cities handle absences. Commissioner Davis asked when other terms are up. [Commissioners Labadie’s and Muehlberg’s’ terms are up in 2015. Chair Geng and Commissioners Davis’ and Maddy’s terms are up in 2016.] She stated to become familiar with the zoning regulations takes at least one term. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the continuation of tonight’s public hearing on the Summit Woods Development Stage plans is slated for the April 1, 2014, meeting agenda. There will also be some study session items and the Commissioners attendance discussion on the agenda. There was consensus that the public has had sufficient opportunities to voice their concerns about the Summit Woods planned unit development (PUD). The continuation of the public hearing is for the Planning Commission to finish its discussion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 23 of 24 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Chair Geng reported on the February 24, 2014, City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He noted that Councilmember Siakel suggested the Planning Commission do some training on zoning and permitting. Director Nielsen stated there is no joint training effort being done among the South Lake cities this year. He then stated there are government training sessions that can be made available to the Commissioners. He noted he will provide the Commission with information. Chair Geng noted that during that meeting Mayor Zerby stated that some communities are looking at their zoning regulations so that they basically prohibit the McMansion situation. Commissioner Davis asked if that is about teardowns. Director Nielsen explained that issue was discussed 4 – 5 years ago. In the zoning district where there are quarter acre lots the Zoning Code prohibits people from making the lots more than 1.5 times the size of the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for redevelopment. It still ends up with there being larger homes on smaller lots in an area that doesn’t have large lots. Davis asked what the City of Tonka Bay ended up with for regulations. Commissioner Davis stated her mantra is the Planning Commission does the hard work so Council does not have to do it. She commented that she could not have imagined sitting through the discussion about Summit Woods this evening. Director Nielsen noted Council did have to sit through a similar discussion about the Summit Woods concept plan. • SLUC Commissioner Davis asked what the state of the Sensible Land Use Coalition budget is. Director Nielsen stated he forgot to register the City for this year. Davis stated she heard the last session was very good. She commented she cannot afford to pay to attend a session herself. She noted that the next session is about condos and townhomes. She stated baby boomers want condos and townhomes; not senior housing. She asked if people could know what the topics of the next three, for example, sessions will be. • Other Commissioner Davis stated she forwarded the email that was sent out from a resident in the City of Chanhassen about the proposed Boulder Cove development to the Council and Planning Commission to Pat Arnst and asked her what she knew about it. She noted that she will forward Ms. Arnst’s response to the Planning Commissioners. Director Nielsen noted that staff had made a list of concerns that it thought the City should convey to Chanhassen. That will be put in a letter format, signed by Mayor Zerby and sent to Chanhassen. He explained one concern was density. The proposal shows 31 single-family units. The dwellings are being referred to as the developer’s NexGen style and they are similar to Shorewood’s accessory apartment situation. The dwelling is nothing more than a duplex. That would bring it up to 62 units. He noted that staff met with representatives from Chanhassen about that proposed development earlier in the day. The representatives indicated that all 31 units will not be that duplex style. He stated he gave the resident who sent the email credit for his attention to detail. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 24 of 24 Commissioner Labadie asked Commissioner Maddy if they could switch the months they are scheduled to be the liaison to Council meetings. She stated it does not make any sense for her to be the liaison about the Planning Commission’s April 1, 2014, meeting because she cannot attend it. Maddy stated he would do that. Commissioner Davis offered to be the liaison for Council’s May meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 4, 2014, at 10:37 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder