Loading...
PC-07-07-15 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for July 7, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  June 2, 2015 Bean moved, Johnson seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – SIGNS IN THE R-C, RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT Applicant: Todd Frostad Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners 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 July 27. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider an amendment to sign regulations. Director Nielsen explained Todd Frostad owns the South Lake Office Building located at 23505 County Road 19. The property is zoned R-C, Residential/Commercial. Mr. Frostad has requested an amendment to the sign regulations for properties located in R-C Districts so they are treated similarly to other commercial zoning districts (specifically the C-1, General Commercial District) that provide for signage in scale with the size of the property and the building located thereon. Mr. Frostad is not asking for the same amount of signage as is allowed in the C-1 District. He would like to have the same concept as allowed in the C-1 District. In the C-1 District properties are allowed to have signage totaling in area 10 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 2 of 11 percent of the building silhouette as viewed from the street. That can be divided among three signs one of which can be a pylon sign. Currently, the R-C District allows such properties to have two signs, one of which can be a freestanding sign, no larger than 20 square feet. The other sign must be a wall sign. Total signage must not exceed 36 square feet in total. These requirements apply to any property in the R-C District, regardless of the size of the property or the size of the structure on the property. Mr. Frostad’s building is the largest building in all of the R-C Districts. Yet, he is not allowed to have any more signage than the smallest buildings in the Districts. His building is located near a minor arterial roadway. The applicant has proposed a standard similar in concept to the one in the C-1 District for the R-C District – 5 percent of the building silhouette, with a maximum of 40 square feet for the freestanding sign (one half of what is allowed in the C-1 District). He also proposed the current height limitation for freestanding signs of five feet high be increased to eight feet. Lastly, the applicant proposed that the location requirement for an illuminated freestanding sign be reduced from 200 feet to 100 feet from a residential district boundary. If the distance is less than 100 feet, the sign would have to be screened from view of residential properties. There is very adequate screening along the west side of the applicant’s property. The provision that prohibits a sign from being lit between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. remains as is. Nielsen displayed a graphic of a sign that is 40 square feet provided by the applicant. That sign would not be visible from the residential units on the west. Nielsen noted that staff thinks the proposal has merit and recommends approval of the amendment. Todd Frostad, representing the South Lake Office Building, LLC, thanked the Planning Commission for considering his request. He noted that he worked with Director Nielsen to ensure what he has proposed is reasonable and appropriate because it would affect all of the R-C Districts in the City. He explained that the requirements for natural screening were preserved in the amendment to ensure the boundary was protected. The amendment does not ask for the same rights as the C-1 District. He then explained his current freestanding sign is located a long distance from the driveway entrance onto the property and he would like to move the sign closer to the entrance. That is why he proposed the reduction to 100 from the residential district boundary. Commissioner Bean asked Mr. Frostad why he needs bigger signs. Mr. Frostad explained 20 square feet is quite limited and it is difficult to legibly recognize the wording on the sign when traveling at speeds of 45 miles per hour (mph) and noted the posted speed is not 45 mph. The sign area is broken up between four tenants in his building. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M. Commissioner Bean asked if there are regulations about the construction and nature of signs. Director Nielsen noted the base or columns holding up a monument sign are not counted against the signage. In response to another question, Nielsen explained there are no construction material requirements. Bean asked if there are any illumination restrictions for signage. Nielsen stated what Mr. Frostad proposes will be backlit versus having flood lights light it. The extent of the lighting is limited to 0.4-foot candles at the property line. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 3 of 11 Bean stated that he has some concern that the sign would be more luminous to residents in the area because it can be 100 feet closer to the property line. Director Nielsen stated he does not think the 0.4- foot candles would be too onerous. Street lights are much brighter than 0.4-foot candles. Commissioner Maddy stated the graphic of the proposed signage rendering included in the meeting packet indicates there would be a removable temporary promotions panel at the bottom of the sign. Director Nielsen clarified if that panel will be used it has to be include in the forty square feet maximum. Nielsen explained the City encourages that feature to reduce the number of requests for temporary signage. Commissioner Davis commented that moving the signage closer to the driveway will help a lot. She questioned if the sign will be visible from both sides. Mr. Frostad responded yes. She asked if the only other businesses that could be impacted are the ones noted on the R-C, Residential/Commercial map. Director Nielsen responded yes. In response to a question, Director Nielsen explained that the Monson Building is the former Kuemple Chimes building. Custom grandfather clocks were built there. It was there before most of the single- family residential housing was built around it. That R-C district location has the most residential housing around it. There was concern raised about a lighted sign being a problem on that site if there were to be one there. Nielsen explained it would be difficult for a lighted sign to meet the screening requirement there. Someone found a view of the site on an app. It appeared that the sign is about the size of a real estate sign and that it is not lighted. There was a brief discussion about the other R-C Districts and there was no concern about the proposed ordinance amendment allowing a problematic sign. In response to a question, Director Nielsen explained the Gideon Woods and Manitou Woods Twinhomes do not have enough units to have a sign. Commissioner Davis commented that the Health Sense Campus has a history of wanting more signage. Chair Geng noted that he thought the proposed amendment makes a great deal of sense. He thought the request and solution are reasonable. It protects residential properties from exposure to light. Commissioner Bean noted that originally he was opposed to more signage and more lights. He has changed his position and now thinks the proposed amendment makes common sense because the sign could be closer to the driveway on the Frostad site. Commissioner Maddy noted that logic prevails on this request; it makes sense to him. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of a zoning text amendment regarding signs in the R-C, Residential/Commercial Zoning District. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 4 of 11 Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a Zoning Code text amendment related to a side yard setback for mechanical equipment on lakeshore properties in the Shoreland Overlay Zoning District. Director Nielsen noted the Planning Department has initiated this. Director Nielsen explained that residents in general prefer to put their air conditioning condensing units on the side of their house. Many times the house is built right up to the side yard setback and there is not room for that. That is not an allowable encroachment at this time. More recently, one of the things the applicant has had to provide for a building permit is where the location of the HVAC equipment will be. There is one circumstance when that is not fair. Lakeshore lots in Shoreland Districts are required to have greater side yard setbacks than non-lakeshore lots. The Code requires that those lots must have a total side yard setback of 30 feet, with no one side less than 10 feet. The 10-foot requirement is not a problem; that is what non-lakeshore lots are required to have. The problem arises when the property is set up with side yards constituting some other combination of 30 feet (e.g., 15 and 15). Since the equipment must comply with side setbacks, that property must keep its equipment 15 feet from the property line. The proposed housekeeping text amendment would allow mechanical equipment on lakeshore lots to be an “allowable encroachment” in required side yards, except for those abutting a street, and no closer than 10 feet from the side lot line. The amendment would also prohibit mechanical equipment from being located within drainage and utility easements. Following is how a proposed amendment would read: Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. (4) would be amended to read: (4) Laundry drying and recreational equipment, arbors, trellises, air conditioning or heating equipment in rear yards to a point no closer than five feet from any lot line. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c. would be amended to include: (10) Air conditioning and heating equipment shall not be located within drainage and utility easements. Air conditioning and heating equipment on residential lakeshore lots may encroach into required side yards, but no closer than 10 feet from the side lot line, nor within a drainage and utility easement.” Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of the amendment. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. Commissioner Bean asked about backup generators and small pumps for irrigations systems. He questioned if the language should be more generic and not specific to air conditioning and heating. Director Nielsen stated the same logic would apply – generators are allowed 10 feet from the lot line on non-lakeshore lots so why shouldn’t that same thing apply for lakeshore lots. Commissioner Johnson stated if generators were added he questioned if that would open the door for people to locate a generator a considerable distance from the house. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 5 of 11 Commissioner Bean stated that maybe the language could be modified to stipulate that any mechanical equipment in the encroachment would have to be connected into the mechanics in the house. Council Liaison Woodruff noted there is separate language in the Code that regulates the amount of noise that can be generated across the property line independent of the source of the noise. Director Nielsen explained that during the Planning Commission’s next meeting there will be discussion about ordinance amendments related to alternative energy. He thought maybe the generator concern could be discussed with those. Council Liaison Woodruff stated Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) states “…equipment on residential lakeshore lots …”. He questioned if the Zoning Districts should be specified instead. Director Nielsen stated the reference could be to Shoreland District riparian lots. Woodruff stated if there is a definition for residential lakeshore lots in the Zoning Code then he is okay with the proposed wording. Woodruff then stated the language “… nor within a drainage and utility easement …” is redundant because it is stated in the first sentence of paragraph 10. Nielsen stated he will talk to the City Attorney about that. Commissioner Johnson stated that when he worked for a home builder in the northeast part of the country backup generators were located as far away from the house as possible for noise reasons for luxury homes ($6 million in price). The distance from the house was as far as 50 – 100 feet from the home. Johnson then stated it makes sense to discuss generators with other energy sources as Director Nielsen suggested. Council Liaison Woodruff stated air conditioning condensers are permanent noise sources. Generators are infrequently used and are therefore temporary sources of noise. Commissioner Johnson stated if someone decides to build a home that solely uses alternative energy a generator would be the alternative backup. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he thought if a person relied on alternative energy for their home it is unlikely they would have a generator for backup because generators are very inefficient and costly to run. Commissioner Maddy asked if everyone agrees residential lakeshore lot is a legitimate definition. Director Nielsen stated he will check on that and noted that the requirements for Shoreland District riparian lots are different than for other Shoreland lots. Nielsen then stated he will check with the City Attorney as to whether or not the language “… nor within a drainage and utility easement …” in Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) is redundant. Chair Geng stated he wondered if this item should be continued if the Commission is going to discuss proposed amendments to alternative energy during its next meeting. He questioned recommending an amendment to Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) now and then recommending another amendment to it next month. Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of a zoning text amendment regarding side yard setback for mechanical equipment on lakeshore lots in the Shoreland Overlay Zoning District subject to verifying there is a definition for residential lakeshore lot in the Zoning Code and to checking with the City Attorney to find out if the language “… nor within a drainage and utility …” in Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(10) is redundant. Motion passed 5/0. easement Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 6 of 11 W O R K S E S S I O N 3. DISCUSSION – SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT AND BADGER PARK MASTER PLAN RELATIVE TO THE MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY REDEVELOPMENT Director Nielsen explained that the Planning Commissioners were the core of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC was formed to study various impacts of the proposed redevelopment of the MCC property. Part of the study related to the area surrounding the property. He thought it prudent to revisit the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (SCRS) completed in 2012 and adopted into the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan and the Concept Plan for Badger Park. He questioned why the SCRS was not shown to the PAC. He thought the PAC’s findings and recommendations were very consistent with the SCRS Report. If the property is redeveloped according to the PAC’s recommendation he does not think it would require an additional amendment to the Comp Plan. He highlighted elements in the SCRS Report. They are as follows. The SCRS Area included the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Road and County Road 19  intersection (the westerly boundary of that area has not been defined yet), the commercial area on the south side of County Road 19 at the intersection, and the property immediately south of the Shorewood Public Works property. The main focus of the SCRS was the northwest quadrant. He identified the various properties in the northwest quadrant and how they were currently being  used. The American Legion is the main landowner in that area. The SCRS Report indicates there is a desire to have a unified/coordinated development of the  northwest quadrant. The commercial environment currently in existence does not reflect the quality of Shorewood. The Report lists a number of issues identified by the Planning Commission. Vehicular and  pedestrian internal circulation was one of them. The PAC’s Findings and Recommendations Report (FRR) indicated some cleanup of direct access points could be done in the northwest quadrant. The Planning Commission specifically chose not to specify specific types of new structures. The  SCRS Report was more conceptual. The SCRS Report strongly recommends there be senior housing of some type. The Commission  also wanted to have some type of commercial in that area. It is likely housing will take up more of the quadrant than commercial. The hope is the two uses would have some common parking area. There was a strong recommendation to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle circulation within  the Area. And, for there to be common areas for people to enjoy. There was a heavy emphasis on landscaping – both the site and the streetscapes.  The SCRS Report recommends residential type architecture. It includes a few photographs of  multi-use buildings the Commission liked. He noted the City has had at least three developers express interest in that area. One developer talked about doing a co-op project. He commented that the Mayor had thought that the SCRS Area could be a gateway to the community. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 7 of 11 He explained the PAC was asked to discuss what would/should happen with Badger Park. For example, should some of the facilities there be relocated to the MCC property? The consensus of the PAC was that the Park should be kept intact. There was some discussion about building senior housing on the site of the Park. Unfortunately, the soils under the Park are very bad. Concept 1.5 for the Park would increase parking for the Park and the Southshore Center. Assuming Mattamy Homes, the developer for the MCC property, moves forward the Park Concept 1.5 is ready to go. Earlier in the day during a Council work session there was some discussion about moving the sports field in Badger Park to Freeman Park. The Park Commission has indicated some type of play area/open space should remain in Badger Park. He noted the Park Commission recommended Concept 1.5 and Council had approved it until the MCC redevelopment project came along. Nielsen stated from his vantage point the PAC study confirms the SCRS and Badger Park Concept 1.5. Commissioner Johnson asked if Mattamy has a copy of the SCRS Report. Director Nielsen responded he was unsure. Commissioner Davis stated she thought the SCRS Report should have been shared with all of the PAC members. Director Nielsen stated he was frustrated that it was not. Director Nielsen stated he thought the proposal for the redevelopment of the MCC property will, and to some extent has, stirred interest in the Smithtown Crossing area. He commented that the market for senior housing is very strong. Nielsen went on to state that during its work session earlier in the day Council did a nice job with Mattamy’s pre-application; it did what it was supposed to do. He explained Council went through the PAC’s recommendations one by one. They prioritized some items and added new ones. In response to a question from Commissioner Johnson, Director Nielsen explained that when the Planning Commission started the SCRS they agreed that the SCRS Area is to some extent the entry into the City when coming from the north. The hope is the SCRS Area would end up a mini city center with its own identity; similar to the area referred to as Navarre. It would also compliment the City Campus. Nielsen reiterated the Commission thought that there should be some commercial component in the Area even if it is a small neighborhood component. Council Liaison Woodruff stated from his personal perspective if a person lived along Manor Road it is likely they would not consider the need for a mini city center high on their priority list. Because he lives out on Enchanted Island it is not high on his priority list. But, having an area that is identified as bait is not the impression the City should want to leave with anyone. He does think that whatever is done to the Area should be attractive and of benefit to the Area. He then stated for the last 7 – 10 years the market demand has not incented developers to want to do anything there. It would have been a mistake for the City to acquire a number of properties in the Area. He went on to state one of the major reasons the City has not started to make significant improvements to Badger Park is the City has not had the money. Concept 1.5 improvements will cost more than $1 million. There is only about one half of that in the Park Improvements Fund. Commissioner Bean asked if there has ever been discussion about relocating City Hall to the property just south of the Public works site. Director Nielsen responded the SCRS indicated that property would likely end up being something other than single-family; the City would be open to changing the zoning. Nielsen noted a renovation of City Hall was completed in 2009 for a cost of more than $1 million. He explained that when the Public Safety facility in Shorewood was built there was a brief discussion about CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 8 of 11 incorporating City Hall into that. That idea was scraped quickly because there were other South Lake cities involved with the construction of the facility. Council Liaison Woodruff stated during his tenure on Council there has never been discussion about relocating City Hall north of County Road 19; there had been discussion about moving it south slightly. But, if there was a compelling reason to free up the current site he was sure Council would discuss it. He then stated the bonded debt for the City Hall renovation will not be paid off for 10 or more years. Bean stated the size of the field in Badger Park (300 feet by 160 feet) is not a full-sized football field. Nielsen stated it is a little bit short. Bean clarified it was 60 feet short. He asked if there is any intent to play soccer there. Nielsen stated when necessary soccer leagues give up time to football and lacrosse leagues at Badger Park. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the original Badger Park improvements plan did a better job of connecting the Southshore Center to Badger Park and City Hall than Concept 1.5 does. But, the Park Commission preferred Concept 1.5 and he could not get the Commissioners to change their mind. Commissioner Davis asked when park dedication fees are paid. Director Nielsen responded with the final plat. Nielsen stated that will be another issue because the City Code requires a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot or at the City’s discretion 8 percent of the raw value of the land. The 8 percent would end up being much more than the fee and he is not sure why the City would not go with the raw value of the land route. He is not sure if the City would give some credit for the 60 percent open space on the redeveloped MCC property. He does not recommend doing that because if that open space were not there Mattamy would have increased the yard on the lots. Mattamy may get some credit for trails. Commissioner Maddy asked if representatives from Tonka Bay were involved in the SCRS. Director Nielsen stated they were made aware of it but they were not invited to participate. Maddy stated if the City does try and promote a gateway area half of the gateway would be missing because it is located in Tonka Bay. He questioned if Shorewood could merge with Tonka Bay. Nielsen stated it would be a gateway to the west. Commissioner Bean stated Shorewood could annex with Excelsior and then it would have a downtown. Someone stated that would solve all sorts of issues. Bean suggesting putting the area back to the way it was. Maddy stated it would simplify things. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Chair Geng noted that he attended Council’s work session earlier in the day about the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment project. He explained Mattamy Homes submitted its application for a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment and its concept plan for the MCC redevelopment project on July 6. The 60-day time period for the City to act on it started July 6. There was discussion during the work session about extending the 60 days by another 60 days. Because of the size of the project there may be a need for the Planning Commission to meet more than once a month. The Commission discussed the possible need to do that earlier in the year. Commissioner Johnson noted that since he started on the Commission the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) met twice a month regarding primarily the redevelopment of the MCC property. For the Commission to meet more frequently would not be much of a change. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 9 of 11 Council Liaison Woodruff asked Director Nielsen if he shared the MCC redevelopment review process timeline with the Planning Commission. Nielsen responded he had not. Woodruff explained that unless the City finds deficiencies in the application it has 60 days to act on it. The City can extend the time period an additional 60 days for some cause. To do that it must notify the applicant in writing before the initial 60 days is up. During that time period the Planning Commission has to hold a public hearing on the concept plan and make a recommendation to Council and Council has to either approve or deny the application. Following that is the Development Stage and that same process will be followed for the development plan. The last stage in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is the Final Plan Stage when a final plat is considered by Council. If the City does not take action during any Stage the State Statute required timeframe the application for that Stage is automatically approved. He stated there will be a need for more than one Commission meeting a month. Director Nielsen noted there will be a public hearing on August 4 for the Comp Plan amendment and concept plan. If for some reason the Commission chose to continue the public hearing it would be continued to August 18. Nielsen displayed the MCC redevelopment review process timeline on the screen. It showed the shortest and longest time periods for approving the three PUD Stages. There are unknowns about how long it will take the developer to submit its plans for the next Stage once they receive approval for the previous Stage’s plan. He noted that he does not recommend extending the PUD Stages review and approval time period by an additional 60 days up front. He thought it would be better to announce during/after the Planning Commission’s first public hearing on the project that the meeting schedule is such that the review and consideration process has to be extended out. Commissioner Bean asked if Council had any discussion about holding neighborhood meetings. Director Nielsen stated Council has decided to bring John Shardlow, with Stantec Consultant Services, Inc., back to at a minimum be at an informational meeting. He clarified it is not a meeting to take public comment. The City can receive written public comment. It would be a meeting to inform the public about what has been done to date including the findings and recommendations from the PAC. He noted there has not been a decision about when in the review process it should held. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that during a meeting about the Summit Woods development project many residents asked questions that could not be answered because the concept plan does not provide that detailed information. That detail information was provided as part of the development plan. During Council’s work session earlier in the day he suggested the public meeting be held sometime during the Development Stage when there is enough information to answer the questions. There was discussion between Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Woodruff about what each thought they heard during the work session. Council Liaison Woodruff noted he did not think it would be prudent for Council to also hold a public hearing on the concept plan and the development plan. He thought it would undermine the importance of the Planning Commission’s public hearing. Chair Geng stated the issues and concerns raised during the Commission’s public hearing would just be repeated during a Council public hearing. Commissioner Bean stated residents want an opportunity to vent. He then stated there are things that the City ordinances allow even though residents may not like them. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 10 of 11 Chair Geng stated he thought it would be better to have an open house before the Commission holds its public hearing on the concept plan. He then stated that during the public hearing there would be an opportunity to explain why maintaining a golf course there was never an option. Commissioner Bean asked if there is a scenario where Mattamy could develop the MCC property without having to have public hearings. Director Nielsen responded no. But, there could be a scenario where Mattamy would not have to ask for an amendment to the Comp Plan. Bean asked how many lots there could be under the current zoning for the property. Nielsen stated 40,000 square-foot lots could be platted across the entire site (about 100 lots). Council Liaison Woodruff stated some of the site is unbuildable so there could be 80 – 90 lots. Bean stated the price point on those developed lots (mansions) would be significantly more. Council Liaison Woodruff stated for the Summit Woods development the developer could have built something that complied with the Zoning Code. It would not have been something the City wanted. A number of residents in that area wanted there to be no redevelopment of the area. Commissioner Bean suggested residents be told about a scenario where Mattamy could redevelop the property without asking for zoning changes. And, that the PUD process gives the City an ability to get some things that are beneficial to the City. Director Nielsen stated the PUD process and the Comp Plan both in some way give equal weight to density as well as specific lot sizes. He then stated clustering the homes is better for the City. It allows for better drainage off of the site, for example. He went on to state there is no way the City could operate the MCC golf course or a smaller version of it. Council Liaison Woodruff stated during the work session someone pointed out that the City was not given an opportunity to bid on the MCC property. The owners of the property selected a group of developers to bid on the property and they selected Mattamy. The sale price was $15 million. To bond for that would have required a 30 percent increase in the tax levy. Chair Geng stated it is his understanding that Mattamy was not the high bidder. Commissioner Johnson concurred. Commissioner Davis stated she thought the public meeting needs to be held first and the comments about what the developer has the right to do must be told to the public. Director Nielsen stated one of the things that impresses him about the concept plan is there will still be views of open space. There will not be many views of houses from around the outside of the property. Chair Geng stated he does not think there is a way to schedule an open house before the August 4 public hearing. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that he thought Council decided to have an informational meeting instead of Council also holding a public hearing. He commented that maybe it would be appropriate to have two informational meetings. Multiple neighborhood meetings worked well for trails. Commissioner Bean suggested putting up a redevelopment sign on the corner and it could note when there is a neighborhood/informational meeting. Chair Geng stated he thought that would make the second public hearing for the development plan go much better. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2015 Page 11 of 11 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a public hearing for the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment project slated for the August 4, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. There is also a conditional use permit for fill and grading slated for that meeting which will be considered before the MCC public hearing. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on Council’s June 22, 2015, meetings (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC Commissioner Davis stated she attended the last Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session. It was about groundwater and she thought it was a very good session. She recommended people go to the SLUC website and watch the presentation. Commissioner Maddy stated he also thought it was very good. • Other Commissioner Davis talked about an effort undertaken where a potpourri of seed types was planted in the boulevard area. She noted the area looks beautiful. She stated the mix of seed types can be customized. 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddy seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 7, 2015, at 9:14 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder