Loading...
PC-12-02-14 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2014 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Labadie, Maddy and Muehlberg; Council Liaison Siakel; and, Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for December 2, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  November 18, 2014 Commissioner Muehlberg asked Director Nielsen to clarify a couple of things in the minutes because he had not attended that meeting. A two word clarification was made in the minutes. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2014, as amended in Item 1, Page 3, Paragraph 2 change “… planning consultant to assist people” to “… planning consultant to assist the City”. Motion passed 5/0. S T U D Y S E S S I O N 1. DISCUSS GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM – TREE CITY USA Director Nielsen explained there is a Best Practice (BP) under the Urban Forests section in the GreenStep Cities Program that the City could relatively easily implement. It is to become a Tree City USA community. The City used to be qualified as such. He does not think it takes a lot of effort to be in it. The Tree City USA Program does provide technical assistance. It may also make a community more eligible for grant programs. It produces a newsletter that includes information about tree care. He has ordered the application packet. To qualify as a Tree City USA community the City has to meet four standards established by the Arbor Day Foundation and the National Association of State Foresters. One is it must have a community forestry program with an annual budget of at least $2 per capita. He thinks in the future the City will easily spend that. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has slated money for the purchase of a boom truck and wood chipper in 2016. Between what the City spends on tree trimming services and on Public Works personnel doing tree works that should come to about $14,800 worth of in kind costs for 2015. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 2 of 6 Council Liaison Siakel asked if the City’s participation in the City of Minnetonka’s tree purchasing program counts toward that in any way. Director Nielsen stated staff time would count. Nielsen stated if the Planning Commission agrees with his recommendation to move forward with this he asked that it make that recommendation to Council. Commissioner Davis stated the Park Commission could plan a park related event around Arbor Day. Commissioner Maddy asked if buckthorn removal counts toward the spending amount. Director Nielsen responded yes. Commissioner Davis asked if the cost of purchasing more weed wrenches could also count. Director Nielsen stated he does not think there is a need for more. Commissioner Labadie stated she thought she heard that tree services, Public Works personnel, equipment purchases and trees all count towards the funding threshold. She noted that Arbor Day is April 24, 2015. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending Shorewood become a Tree City USA community. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Labadie asked if the requirement for an Arbor Day observance and proclamation has to be done annually or just in the year the City establishes itself as a Tree City USA community. Director Nielsen stated he thought it must be done annually. 2. CONTINUED DISCUSSION – ZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Director Nielsen explained one of the things a planned unit development (PUD) is supposed to help do is preserve natural features. That was evidenced with the Summit Woods PUD. He stated during the Planning Commission’s November 18, 2014, meeting he displayed a graph showing the locations of the various PUDs in the City (it did not show Summit Woods) and briefly described each PUD. As explained in the last meeting, the Waterford Development on the east end of the City is an example of a classic mixed use PUD. That project had three elements – fairly large, single-family residential lots; a tier of twin homes between the residential and commercial sites to serve as a transition; and, a commercial tier along Highway 7. The project also included the construction of the intersection at Old Market Road and Highway 7. He thought the commercial component could have been much nicer. Unfortunately, the City did not assert itself in terms of what it wanted in the commercial development. The Boulder Bridge PUD was constructed in the early 1980s. As explained in the last meeting, the lots are all standard lots. The PUD has a fair amount of common open space. There is a small lagoon on the west end of that development and 43 out of the 56 lots were able to have boat slips. Some of the lots were able to have multiple slips and some lots that don’t front the lake have slips. He noted additional features in the PUD. As explained in the last meeting the Marsh Pointe PUD has R-1A zoning with a density of one unit per 40,000 square feet. The City allowed for some smaller lots. The lots were treated more like R-1C lots which are one-half acre lots with smaller setbacks. Because of the smaller lots the City obtained various sized setbacks around the wetland area; in some instances as much as 75 feet. The natural area was protected by letting the houses be closer to the street. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 3 of 6 He highlighted things in the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan relative to the benefits of PUDs.  The contractual agreement between the developer and the City actually provides the City more control than traditional subdivisions.  They are conducive to more efficient circulation patterns than piecemeal development. (When lots are developed in small chunks it is difficult to get thru streets.)  It provides for better land use transitions particularly in the mixed use of it.  It encourages the preservation of natural features through clustering.  The applicant has to provide clear and convincing evidence that the project meets PUD criteria and provides benefit over traditional zoning. He read the items included in Zoning Code Section 1201.25 Subd. 1 relative to the purpose of a PUD District. a. Innovations in residential development to the end that the growing demands for housing at all economic levels may be met by greater variety in tenure, type, design and siting of dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in the developments; b. Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and experienced land planners, architects and landscape architects; c. More convenience in location of commercial and service areas within a given project or area, allowing more efficient and desirable transitions between residential and nonresidential land uses; d. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; e. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of land from rural to urban uses; f. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering housing costs and public investments; g. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan; h. A more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of zoning and subdivision regulations of the city; i. To give the landowner and developer reasonable assurance of ultimate approval before expending complete design monies while providing city officials with assurances that the project will retain the character envisioned at the time of concurrence; j. To allow variation from the provisions of this chapter, including setbacks, height, lot area, width and depth, yards and the like internally within the project. Provisions of this chapter shall generally be maintained at the periphery of the project area. He explained there are two types of PUDs – a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) and the PUD Zoning District. Most of the PUDs in the City fell into the C.U.P. category; the use does not change. The use for the Summit Woods project was the use that was allowed in that single-family residential zoning district. Instead of the strict setback requirements of the R-1C zoning district the setbacks were reduced on a couple of the lots and increased on a couple of the lots. The City also got a conservation easement as part of that project. If it is a commercial PUD whatever is allowed in the commercial district is an allowable use in the PUD. For a PUD Zoning District the zoning of the property is changed. That allows for different uses or a mixture of uses. It could be a mixture of residential uses or a mixture of residential uses and commercial use. The Near Mountain project was done as a PUD Zoning District. When it was originally approved CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 4 of 6 there was to be a mixture of residential uses. As the project moved along the developer found out there was a bigger demand for single-family houses so the developer asked for the density to be reduced. It ended up being developed as all single-family. Chair Geng asked where the PUD originated. Director Nielsen stated he thought it came about with projects out in Reston, Virginia. Nielsen then stated one of the biggest and earliest PUDs in Minnesota was the Planned Community of Jonathan in the City of Chaska. The first PUD in Shorewood was Amesbury. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated for the Planning Commission’s January 6, 2015, meeting there will a site plan review for the American Legion’s old gas station property, consideration of a conditional use permit for a property along Yellowstone Trail to bring in excess fill, and discussion about the Commission’s 2015 work program. He commented that much of the Commission’s time next year will be consumed by the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property redevelopment project. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Chair Geng reported on the November 24, 2014, City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Director Nielsen stated the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project is going to move to the next phase. He noted that a good share of that sidewalk is frontage for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property. He stated because of the redevelopment of the MCC property the extension could possibly be delayed. He then stated that the improvements to Badger Park have been pushed out to at least 2016. Again, that delay is tied to the MCC property. There is funding for the first phase of the Park improvements but not the second phase at this time. Council Liaison Siakel stated Council wants to have a solid plan for the City Hall campus, the MCC property and all sections of the Smithtown Crossing area as a whole rather than developing it piece meal. She then stated that Council wants to hire a planning consultant to assist with identifying options for the entire area. Director Nielsen stated two members of Council and staff will interview two consultants for that effort and make a recommendation to Council. A selection will be made in early January. Director Nielsen stated the MCC 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 Comprehensive (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 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 5 of 6 present what they are considering, what the process might look like and what issues they will be faced with during development. It does not require a public hearing. The formal application will be to change the zoning of the MCC property. From his perspective it is a given the property will be redeveloped as a planned unit development (PUD). Because of bad soils on some part of the site the houses will be clustered together. Chair Geng stated it is his understanding that the Comp Plan amendment has to be approved by the Metropolitan (Met) Council. Director Nielsen confirmed that and stated that Met Council can take as much as 60 days to consider the amendment. Nielsen stated the redevelopment of the MCC site is not significant to the metro area. He then stated he anticipates the Met Council will disagree with the density being proposed but he does not think it has any power over that. Director Nielsen stated the size of the project will likely not reach the threshold that would mandate an environmental assessment be done through the Environmental Quality Board. Only 25 people, not necessarily residents, need to petition to have that done and that could take 60 days or more to get done. He noted that the developer has told the City it does not plan to start construction in 2015. They would like to obtain conceptual approval in six to seven months. Commissioner Maddy asked if the developer has control of the site. Director Nielsen responded yes and they have brought the City a copy of a letter of intent and will bring the City of a copy of a purchase agreement. The City has received a letter from the current owners saying the developer has permission to make application. The purchase agreement has to extend long enough to get through the process. Director Nielsen explained the City already requires escrows to cover the cost of the 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. • SLUC Commissioner Davis stated she attended the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) Roundtables of Knowledge. The one she found most interesting was a man who tries to get communities to hydro seed with wildflowers. He gave those who came to that roundtable a bag of his seed which is all flowers. The pictures he showed of communities who are doing it are spectacular. The first year annuals are planted. The second year the seeds take hold and after that the plants self seed. Another roundtable was Minneapolis Park Board and it was about parklets. She found the concept very interesting. Parklets are something communities the size of Shorewood could do to create instant public spaces for a period of time. People were there talking about upcoming National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater management requirements. WSB & Associates talked about wind farms. • Other Commissioner Davis stated she recollects a simple lot split of a property located between Highway 7 and Eureka Road across from Freeman Park had been approved. The price of the lot has been reduced twice. She asked if anyone else has noticed the junk in the front of the house there. There are numerous trucks and plows there and there is always something for sale. It is clear a business is being run out of there. Director Nielsen stated he will drive by the site. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 6 of 6 7. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddie seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of December 2, 2014, at 8:02 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder