Loading...
PC-11-18-14 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:12 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Labadie, and Maddy; and, Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda for November 18, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 21, 2014 Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. S T U D Y S E S S I O N 1. MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY Director Nielsen noted that the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property is up for sale. He stated one developer has indicated they have purchased the property. The meeting packet contains some background information about the site and the zoning of it that he had assembled for a November 4, 2014, City Council Executive Session. That information is available on the City’s website and it will be updated when new factual information is available. There will likely be a link on the website home page. Nielsen went through the background material. The highlights are as follows. The MCC property is the largest single parcel of land in Shorewood. It is116.9 acres in size.  The Comprehensive (Comp) Plan categorizes the proposed land use of the property as semi-  public. That is what a golf course is considered. The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential. The first thing a developer will have to  do is submit an application for the City to amend the Comp Plan. That process is a two-stage process – a pre-application stage and the formal application. During the pre-application stage the developer will informally come before the Planning Commission and Council and present what they are considering, what the process might look like and what issues they will be faced with during development. That stage does not involve a public hearing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 18, 2014 Page 2 of 7 The property will be developed as some sort of Planned Unit Development (PUD). The  underlying density may remain R-1A. Under R-1A zoning, the site could potentially be subdivided into 100 lots. But, not all of the site is suitable for lots. There is a fair amount of poor soil (deep peat) on the property. The lots would be clustered on a portion of the site. He thought the transportation component will dictate what happens on the property.  He spoke about the PUDs in Shorewood. Boulder Bridge – it basically has R-1A lots and open space and it allowed for multiple boat slips  for almost all of the lots (including lots that do not front Lake Minnetonka). Marsh Pointe – through the PUD process the site was able to use the R-1A density of one unit per  acre (40,000 square feet). Some smaller lots were allowed as well. Because of the smaller lots the City obtained various sized setbacks around the wetland area. This development was the impetus for updating the wetland ordinance to require setbacks. Watten Ponds – the site was zoned R-1A and the PUD process allowed some smaller lots (close  to high 20,000s square feet) and some lots were larger than one acre. This development was the impetus for adopting a tree preservation ordinance. Shorewood Pond – it is a senior housing development and per the City’s Ordinance it was  required to be developed as a PUD. It is essentially single-family houses clustered together. The clusters are four. It is located in essentially what is a single-family district. More units were constructed because it was senior housing. The main roadway going through the development is public and the other roadways are private and maintained by the association. Amesbury – it was the City’s first PUD. It was developed in the mid to late 1970s. It basically  had one unit per acre density. The City approved increasing the density to two units per acre. Patio homes (two single-family attached houses sometimes called twin homes) and townhouses were built. The main roadway through the site is public and the rest are private. The roadway was built to a lesser standard and the structures were built closer to roadways. Amesbury West – it was an expansion of Amesbury and was developed under the current PUD  Ordinance. Some townhouses were developed. Barrington – the original zoning allowed a certain density but the City allowed a little higher  density. It already allowed for double homes. The dwellings are two-family rather than single- family. Those residents take care of the private roadway. The Seasons – it is a senior housing project. The dwellings are all twin-homes.  Robert S. C. Peterson Addition – it was one of the better uses of the PUD process. The underlying  zoning was R-1A. The zoning for this site did not change. The City allowed some smaller lots and therefore had some common open space protected. The process was a PUD conditional use permit (C.U.P.). Waterford – it is the best example of a PUD district. It is a mixed use development. There are  large lot single-family houses, a strip of twin-homes and then a commercial component along Highway 7. As part of the project a new intersection was built at Old Market Road. Nielsen stated from his perspective, for the commercial component the City chose not to express what it wanted to see on that property. He thought the commercial component could have been much nicer. Silver Ridge – it is similar to the Robert S. C. Peterson PUD.  Near Mountain – it is the biggest PUD in Shorewood. For the street that runs along Silver Lake  those abutting lots are 30,000 square feet in size. To the east of that the lot sizes decrease to 10,000 square feet. He noted the PUD process is a three stage process – the Concept Stage, the Development Stage (it coincides with preliminary plat) and the Final Plan Stage (it includes the final plat, the development agreement, getting the letters of credit together and recording what was approved). He stated staff has met CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 18, 2014 Page 3 of 7 with four developers who were interested in what was possible for the property. Staff informed them that it would likely be developed as a PUD. He told them it is possible to combine the Concept Stage and Development Stage but he recommended against doing that. He also noted that Council has decided to hire a planning consultant to assist the City. The scope of that effort has not been determined. Staff will be interviewing some consultants the week of November 24. Hopefully, they will appear before Council during Council’s December 8 meeting. He stated the Planning Commission will have a busy next six to twelve months. Chair Geng asked if it is possible that the Planning Commission will have to meet more than once a month. Director Nielsen responded it is. Director Nielsen stated the planning consultant will be asked to manage public information dissemination. He thought there will be some type of informal open house before the MCC property redevelopment process advances very far along. Residents will be told that the owners of the MCC property have a right to develop it and use it. The City will solicit feedback about concerns residents have about the redevelopment. The MCC Golf Course is located in one planning district, the property to the north of it is another planning district and the property to the east of it is in another planning district. It is likely that residents living in the three different planning districts will be notified at least for certain aspects the process. Nielsen then stated, for example, if all of the lots were to be on one-half of the MCC property the lots will be smaller. And, the setbacks that go along with that will not be R-1A setbacks; they will be correspondingly smaller. The setbacks will be internal to the PUD and therefore won’t affect the surrounding properties. The PUD allows that to happen. It is a negotiated through the PUD process which allows for some flexibility in how the lots are created within the project area. Nielsen explained developers have been told that because there are plans to extend the Smithtown Road sidewalk to the east it would not be unreasonable for the City to expect some type of looped sidewalk/trail around the perimeter of the site. One developer he spoke with said that would not be a problem; it would benefit the project. He stated he thought there is an opportunity for the City to get some things it would like (e.g., protection of the sensitive parts of the site). He reiterated that transportation will be a real issue. He stated staff anticipates a traffic study will be done relative to the project and to help determine how to mitigate the impact of the increased traffic flow on Country Club Road and Lake Linden Drive. He commented that if Country Club Road were moved to the west and if it made it a little less convenient for the drivers that want to cut thru to get to Highway 7 then that reduction in traffic could help mitigate the impact of the new traffic. Commissioner Davis asked where the poor soils are on the property. Director Nielsen responded mostly on the south end. Director Nielsen stated that drainage is also a concern for the redeveloped site. He noted the area is well served with municipal water and sanitary sewer. He stated there are issues with public open space. Commissioner Maddy asked if staff has formally spoken with the current owners of the MCC property. Director Nielsen responded no. Director Nielsen noted that the City Ordinance requires that a developer has to have control the property before they can make an application. They have to at least have a purchase agreement that will last as long as the process will take. He explained the City already requires escrows to cover the cost of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 18, 2014 Page 4 of 7 City’s expenditures for processing a request. But, for the size of the MCC project it is not enough. Therefore, the Shorewood City Attorney will develop a predevelopment agreement to ensure the developer covers the City’s cost of processing a request. Nielsen stated the Near Mountain PUD was 273 units. The Waterford PUD was also larger than what the MCC PUD will be. Chair Geng stated he assumes a lot of trees on the MCC property will be lost. Director Nielsen stated the goal of a PUD is to site lots and houses to save as many trees as possible. Nielsen noted the trees tend to be on the better ground in the MCC property. Director Nielsen commented that he assumes that there will be a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission to provide the Commission with direction. Nielsen stated the City Attorney will draft some guidelines for Council that will also apply to the Planning Commission about how to communicate with the press and residents. It will lay out what can be said and what should not be said. For the Summit Woods PUD the Attorney eventually advised members of the Council and Planning Commission to encourage residents to present their questions and concerns at public meetings about the project so that everyone hears the same thing. 2. DISCUSS GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission last discussed the GreenStep Cities Program during its August 5, 2014, meeting. During that meeting there was a review of the things the City had done since it received its first GreenStep award. He also attempted to identify things the Planning Commission can do in that Program. He noted that Council will interview consultants to conduct an alternative (green) energy study for the City. One of them will be selected to do the study and present to Council what the City could potentially do from a cost effective perspective. He clarified he is not sure what involvement the Planning Commission will have with that. He explained the City Ordinance addresses solar energy quite well. It does not address wind energy as well. He recommended Staff and the Planning Commission come up with an ordinance to address wind generators. There have been a few inquiries into individual residential wind generators. Consultants have indicated that is not very cost effective for this area. Some cities have adopted ordinances that regulate wind generators. He stated during the August 5 meeting it was noted that there may be other Best Practices (BPs) under Urban Forests section in the GreenStep Cities Program that the City has or could easily implement to qualify as Tree City USA. The City used to be qualified as such. He does not think it takes a lot of effort to be in it. He explained BP 16.2 talks about adopting as policy Minnesota Tree Trusts’ BPs and using the guidelines in at least one development project, such as the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment, to get the City more credit on its GreenStep Cities Program. That could be discussed during the December 2 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that BP Local Air Quality 23.2 can be marked as done because the City already regulates recreational burning and outdoor wood boilers. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 18, 2014 Page 5 of 7 He stated that during the August 5 meeting Commissioner Davis stated the City should be able to get credit for backyard gardening and chickens; BP Local Food 27.4.b. He then stated the Planning Commission’s greatest efforts regarding the GreenStep Cities Program over the next few months will be related to trees and alternative energy. In response to a question from Chair Geng, Director Nielsen stated the alternative energy study will take six to eight months. Director Nielsen explained that very early this year he and Mayor Zerby met with representatives from a company who wanted to put in a solar array at Badger Park. The company would put in the infrastructure at no cost. It would guarantee that the City’s electrical rates would not increase more than a small amount for a number of years. The structure would generate power for certain parts of the City Hall Campus. A representative made a presentation to Council. The firm would have been eligible for tax incentives for doing that if it would move forward quickly. Some members of Council did not want to move forward with that offer quickly. That is where the impetus for the study came from. Chair Geng asked if the consultant would address wind energy. He suggested having the Planning Commission’s consideration of wind energy dovetail with that. Director Nielsen suggested asking the consultant what their perspective is about wind energy for a single residential lot. Chair Geng stated being proactive on wind energy will hopefully keep the City out of the situation that the City of Orono is in with one of its property owners. He asked if there is a sense of urgency in amending the Ordinance to address wind energy with regard to the GreenStep Cities Program. Director Nielsen stated it would not get the City a step by regulating wind energy. Director Nielsen suggested the Planning Commission wait on wind energy and give the consultant some direction to provide insight on the effectiveness of single residential lot wind energy. Geng clarified Council may not want the consultant to focus on that. Nielsen recommended the Commission suggest to Council that it would like the consultant to provide insight on small lot wind energy. Commissioner Maddy stated it is clear the economics are not there for that which is why there is no push for it at this time. 3. DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY RECYCLING Director Nielsen clarified that one member of Council asked that the Planning Commission discuss the requirements for commercial property recycling and multi-family dwelling unit recycling. He explained that the City already has recycling for single-family residents. It does not require commercial and multi-family properties to recycle. Some cities do have ordinances that require that. If the City were to move forward with such an ordinance it would be modeled after some other city’s ordinance. Most of those ordinances are one page long. Staff found out that starting in 2016 the State of Minnesota is going to mandate that. He asked the Commission if it wants to take this up in the near future or wait until a mandate goes into effect. He stated if there would be push back when the mandate goes into effect then the City can use the mandate as an out. If the City implements that requirement up front the City has to defend against any push back. He noted he is not sure why the City does not have commercial recycling. It would make sense to do that. He stated when the City moves forward with that it has to make sure it recycles in its parks. Currently any recycling done there is handled by the Recycling Coordinator. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 18, 2014 Page 6 of 7 He noted that commercial recycling should earn the City some steps on the GreenStep Cities Program. Nielsen also noted that he and Chair Geng talked about the timing of implementing that. Nielsen stated Geng had suggested that if the City implements commercial recycling in advance of the mandate that it have an informal gathering of commercial businesses to talk about it and to find out which are already recycling. Commissioner Maddy asked if staff has any idea of how many commercial properties are recycling now. Director Nielsen responded he does not know. Maddy stated he does not think there will be much push back. Maddy stated that being proactive could potentially streamline the logistics and reduce the cost. He noted that the City has only one residential cycler. Director Nielsen stated he likes Chair Geng’s idea of having some type of forum for commercial businesses and multi-family unit developments to talk about the inevitable recycling mandate. He suggested doing that in February. Chair Geng stated he thinks people like to be asked about their perspectives. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated for the Planning Commission’s December 2, 2014, meeting there will be discussion about the tree ordinances he referred to during the discussion about the GreenStep Cities Program. He noted the State has developed a model solar energy ordinance. He stated he will provide the Commission with a copy of that, but it may be more effective to discuss that after the alternative energy study is started. The meeting will likely be a study session. Nielsen encouraged the Commissioners to keep the third Tuesday of the month open in case there is a need to meet more frequently because of the Minnetonka Country Club property redevelopment. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Chair Geng reported on the October 27, 2014, and the November 10, 2014, City Council meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). Director Nielsen explained that during its October 27 meeting Council took action on the proposed amendment to the City Zoning Code relative to senior housing. People thought the amendment was approved on a 2/1 vote only to learn later that a majority of Council, not just members present, had to approve it so it did not pass. That will likely be considered again during Council’s December 8 meeting and he hopes it is adopted. (The discussion about concerns about amending the Code to specifically address senior housing on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area is documented in the October 27 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 18, 2014 Page 7 of 7 meeting minutes.) He noted that Rick Fenske, with WEIS Builders, made a presentation about senior housing to Council during its September 8 work session. Nielsen reiterated why he thought senior housing / life cycle housing was appropriate for Shorewood in general. Commissioner Davis stated the Sioux community is now building various types of life cycle housing in its new developments. She then stated she thought there will be more focus on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area because of the redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property. Director Nielsen concurred. Director Nielsen stated that maybe the senior component of the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment could be moved across the street where there is a little more room and it would not be close to the residential neighborhood in that area. There was discussion about concerns conveyed during the November 10 meeting by residents’ about the new Boulder Cove development in the City of Chanhassen. The concerns were primarily about safety and drainage. There was discussion about the future reconstruction of Strawberry Lane and the construction of a trail along side. [During its November 10 work session Council agreed to discuss those items further and the funding for them during the February 2014 council and staff retreat.] • SLUC • Other 8. ADJOURNMENT Maddy moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 18, 2014, at 8:38 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder