Loading...
PC-08-04-15 CITY OF SHOREWOOD SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2015 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison Siakel; and, Engineer Hornby Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for August 4, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  July 7, 2015 Bean moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS Applicant: Bob Morlock Location: 24975 and 24995 Glen Road 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 assist 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. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on August 24. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. Geng asked those people in the audience wishing to speak during the Public Testimony portions of the two Public Hearings to keep their comments to two to three minutes to ensure everyone wishing to speak has time. He also asked that those wishing to speak come to the podium, give their first name and spell their last name, and give their address. A person in the audience stated because people will be asked to keep their comments short they may not be able to read the entirety of their written comments. He asked if their written comments could be CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 2 of 24 submitted into the public record. Chair Geng explained prepared/written remarks would be made part of the public record. Chair Geng noted it is his intention to call people to the podium to speak in the order their names are listed on the sign in sheet. Director Nielsen explained Robert Morlock owns the properties located at 24975 and 24995 Glen Road. The Shorewood Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 cubic feet per lot. Because this was largely an engineering issue he turned the explanation of this item over to City Engineer Hornby because he had done the analysis on this case. Engineer Hornby explained the grading plan submitted indicates the applicant intends to import approximately 1,770 cubic yards of fill. Of that, 1,160 cubic yards of the fill is proposed for Lot 7 (the westerly lot). That is needed because there is quite a low spot on that Lot that is not identified as being a wetland. The owners of the property to the west of Lot 7 filed a drainage complaint after the house on Lot 7 was demolished. The owner’s house on that abutting property was getting water in their basement from the surface and potentially from the ground. To fill in the low spot on Lot 7 would be better than just leaving the water to pool on the ground. Staff has recommended the applicant modify the grading plan for Lot 7 to include a slight swale that would direct stormwater to Glen Road. Staff does not think there is a need to retain stormwater on the site primarily to avoid causing an issue to the property west of Lot 7. Hornby noted Mr. Morlock was present. Bob Morlock, the applicant, stated that because Engineer Hornby would like the stormwater to flow to Glen Road he has to raise the grades on the sides of the houses a little so he can create a slope to the street. The current grading would not get the water to the street. Engineer Hornby explained that the applicant is allowed with his grading permit to bring in up to 100 cubic yards of fill. That will allow for a temporary berm along the western edge of Lot 7 so the stormwater does not flow to the property just west of Lot 7. Mr. Morlock stated that by doing what he has proposed it will help the property to the west of Lot 7 because currently the ponding in the back of Lot 7 causes the groundwater to be quite high in the spring. He thought the problem with water seeping into the basement of the house on the property just west of Lot 7 was because of the high water table. Commissioner Johnson asked where the demolished house had been located on Lot 7. Engineer Hornby stated he thought it had been on the southwest corner of the lot and that it was close to the west property line. There was a period of time after the house on Lot 7 had been demolished when the hole in the ground held water. Chair Geng stated when he went to look at the site there appeared to be a depression on Lot 7 with one or two cattails. He asked if that was not a wetland. Engineer Hornby explained the applicant had to apply for a wetland delineation review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD did provide documentation that it was not a wetland and there would not be a loss. Commissioner Bean asked Director Nielsen if there is any definition for the type of fill that can be imported. Engineer Hornby stated if he were the applicant he would bring in fill similar to what is on the site. Hornby explained that in Shorewood there is typically a lot of clay. He would bring in a clay material. Bean then asked if it could be excavation from another construction site. Hornby responded it CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 3 of 24 could be. Hornby stated the applicant could work out importing material excavated from a City construction project site if he wanted to. Bean went on to ask where the fill would be placed on Lot 7. Hornby showed where the fill would go on a graphic displayed and noted the fill would not change the natural drainage pattern other than trying to divert it away from the house on the property to the west. Hornby stated when the applicant applies for the building permit for Lot 7 staff will review the proposed grading plan again and decide if it needs to be modified to accommodate the type of house being proposed while diverting the water away from the house on the property west of Lot 7. In response to a final question from Bean, Director Nielsen explained the applicant has to bring the fill in by October 2015 so restoration can be done on the site so it is not bare. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. Roger Rogney, 25135 Glen Road, noted his property is located next to the Brausen property at 25125 Glen Road which is just west of Lot 7. He explained the Director of Public Works Brown saw their properties after the last storm because of the applicant’s property and because of the development Shorewood allowed behind their properties. Stormwater damage has ruined property owners’ basements and the lower levels of their homes. He suggested the City work with the builder to deal with the drainage issue. He commented that he thought what the City has approved is a cop out. He does not understand why the City would want to approve raising Lot 7 in some spots because that would just increase the stormwater flow onto to the properties to the west of Lot 7. He asked if anyone thinks about what will happen after two new houses are built and there are the new roofs and driveway hardcover. Engineer Hornby responded he has. Mr. Rogney questioned where the runoff is going to go. The stormwater runoff does not go toward Glen Road; it flows on to the properties to the west of Lot 7. He thought stormwater management in his area needs to be assessed. He apologized for being upset; but, stormwater runoff has been an issue in his area for years. Tom Brausen, 25125 Glenn Road, submitted photographs of stormwater issues on his property. He noted his property is located just to the west of Lot 7. He also noted he has lived at his current address for about 21 years. He stated he did not have water issues until the house on Lot 7 was demolished. The applicant demolished the house and left a big hole where the house had been for five or six years while basements in houses to the west were damaged by stormwater. After property owners complained enough to the City the applicant filled the hole with dirt. The City has recommended a berm be built along the west side of Lot 7. He asked what is going to be done for curbs in front of the houses to the left of Lot 7 to keep the water from coming back onto their properties. He noted the photos of his yard show there is as much stormwater coming onto this front yard as his back yard. He stated he thought that should be addressed. He highly recommended putting in a holding pond on the back of Lot 7 because that is what was there for before. Until someone took out the natural ground cover and demolished the house he had never had water problems. He noted he is not excited about what is going on. Chair Geng stated he will make sure the photos Mr. Brausen submitted become part of the record. Mr. Brausen stated he could also share videos if the City would like them. Geng asked if all of the photos were of Mr. Brausen’s property. Mr. Brausen responded yes and noted he took them when he was on his back deck. Mr. Brausen stated Mr. Rogney’s property is the main collector of the stormwater; it flows through his property and onto Mr. Rogney’s. He reiterated he had never had a stormwater problem until the house on Lot 7 was demolished. He explained that after the hole where the house had been was filled in it was CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 4 of 24 graded in such a way that it increased the water flow so that it quickly came onto his front yard and back yard. Mr. Brausen stated he does not have a window well on the side of his house. His house is split level. He explained he has had to replace carpet twice and some of his structure had to be gutted. He then stated if the stormwater is directed to Glen Road it is not going to stay on the roadway because the roadway is not graded that way. Chair Geng asked when Mr. Brausen took the photos he submitted for the record. Mr. Brausen stated during the summer of 2014. Geng stated late spring and early summer of 2014 were unusually rainy and wet. Mr. Brausen stated he could have taken pictures of similar conditions after the relatively recent storm came through. Commissioner Maddy stated the pictures show a lot of water. A lot more water than could come from one vacant lot. He asked Mr. Brausen if he knew where the bulk of the water is coming from. Mr. Brausen stated it is from the housing behind their properties. Mr. Brausen explained it used to be that every spring there used to be a pond on the back of Lots 7 and 8 and ducks used to float in the pond. There used to be frogs there and lily pads would grow in the pond. It would take until July or August for the water in the pond to dissipate. There had been a holding pond there for a very long time. Chair Geng stated that based on what he has heard Mr. Brausen and Mr. Rogney say the water flowing onto their yards is coming from the east and from the south. Mr. Rogney stated the City helped mitigate the flow from the development to the south a number of years ago and that was not an issue again until the house on Lot 7 was demolished. Don Johnson, 5530 Manitou Lane, noted his property is located across from Glen Road. He stated like the previous two property owners have stated he has also been combating stormwater drainage and water infiltration into his basement. The last number of years it has been pretty decent because of some of the landscaping. He has put some asphalt curbing around his driveway and in front of some of his lot to keep the stormwater from coming onto his front yard. He expressed concern about the amount of elevation that will be added to Lots 7 and 8. He stated one half foot or one foot of additional elevation will increase the flow rate onto his property. Even though the City Engineer does not think that will do much to increase the drainage issue he asked if an increase in the flow rate will cause more stormwater to flow onto his property. He then stated that over the years he has observed that when properties were filled in it resulted in seepage into basements as well as other drainage problems. He expressed concern about more seepage into his basement because water tables will be elevated. He asked if staff has assessed how that will impact his property. Engineer Hornby explained the applicant can bring 100 cubic yards of material onto the property. The applicant has been asked to put a temporary berm in to direct the water around Mr. Brausen’s home. The demolished house had acted like a berm before it was town down. The stormwater flowed around the house that had been on Lot 7 and around Mr. Brausen’s home and Mr. Rogney’s home. The stormwater comes out of the front yard on the second property to the west of Lot 7. There is a catch basin for the water to flow into. The catch basin gets plugged from landscape mulch washing into it. There is a culvert that crosses to the north of Glen Road and then the stormwater flows north. That natural drainage pattern has been there for quite a while. Staff has worked with the applicant to try and make an improvement by directing the water away from the two houses to the west of Lot 7 and along the roadway to the catch basin and across Glen Road. If a holding pond were to be created it would likely contribute to ground water impacts to a nearby basement. That is why staff proposed filling the low spot on Lot 7 and directing CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 5 of 24 the water flow off of the Lot. He commented the area is a rural area so the roadways were constructed without curb and gutter. Hornby noted that the applicant has a right to develop Lots 7 and 8. Mr. Johnson asked if the stormwater would be directed to the west lot first before it goes onto Glen Road. Engineer Hornby stated it has to flow down both of the front yards to get to the drain and the south side of Glen Road. Hornby noted that is what happens currently. Mr. Johnson asked what the new elevations of Lots 7 and 8 will be off of the roadway. Commissioner Bean stated the way he reads the drawing the center of the roadway would be 964 feet. Engineer Hornby stated that currently the front yard elevation is 965 feet. Bean stated the front yard elevations will be raised from 965.5 to 968. Hornby noted the swale that would be between the new house on Lot 7 and the west property line would be about six inches deep. Mr. Johnson asked if there are any major improvements scheduled for Glen Road. Engineer Hornby noted there had been a very large drainage project proposed in the past and abandoned. Hornby explained Glen Road, Manitou Lane and Amlee Road are scheduled for significant improvements after 2020. Mr. Johnson asked if the improvements would change the elevations. Hornby responded maybe for the roadways but not for the private properties. Hornby explained if there is an opportunity to make improvements to drainage as part of the roadway improvements the City tries to make them if the roadways are constructed to City standards. Mr. Johnson noted the roadway is not very wide today. Engineer Hornby noted the standard for City roadways is 30 feet wide. But, recently some roadways have been constructed to 28 feet wide back to back curb. The driving surface has been constructed to be 25 feet wide gutter to gutter. Chair Geng stated that one of the concerns raised this evening was about the potential impact of stormwater because of the construction of new houses on Lots 7 and 8. It is his understanding that issue would be addressed when the Lots are developed. Engineer Hornby explained that often when there is a large increase in impervious surface even for an individual home, the City may require a stormwater improvement (e.g., a rain garden) on the site. Since he has been involved with this since about 2012 the concern from residents has been that the water being held on the lot was contributing to the ground water and directly causing water seepage into basements. Therefore, staff has been working with the applicant to direct stormwater off of the site. He believes that is a better solution than holding the water on the site where there is a potential ground water issue. In response to a comment by Chair Geng, Engineer Hornby explained in order for the applicant to get a building pad that will meet the requirements of today’s standards the applicant has to build the sites up a little. The applicant is trying to direct the water away from the two new houses and the City is trying to keep it away from the two properties to the west of Lot 7. Because of the increase in impervious surface the runoff will be faster. When the applicant applies for a building permit for Lots 7 and 8 staff will review the certificate of survey and the grading plan and house for each lot and compare it to this application and grading to ensure it is in general conformance with this plan. Dave Gerton, 25110 Glen Road, noted his property is on the north side of Glen Road and three properties down. He asked Engineer Hornby to comment on the current status of the drainage culvert and he asked if staff has assessed how the culvert is functioning. He wondered if part of staff’s recommendation to Council should include an improvement to have water flow off of the properties more rapidly and onto the LRT. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 6 of 24 Engineer Hornby stated he has not looked at that culvert specifically. That falls under maintenance for the City. He then stated Public Works could be asked to inspect and, if necessary, clean the culvert. Richard Jeidy, 25140 Glen Road, stated he has construction that was put up 12 years ago by Tracy Weathers and he thought that developer went through similar steps. His property was built up (filled). It is approximately five feet with the fill above the ground level where it was. Mr. Gerton owns the property next to him and Mr. Gerton’s basement has never been flooded because of his property being built up. When the landscaping was done to Mr. Jeidy’s property boulders and berms were put in along the sides. His property has never been flooded. He noted that the last time the City proposed roadway improvements and drainage improvements for the area the property owners overwhelmingly opposed the proposal. He stated from his vantage point what is being proposed by staff and the applicant is appropriate and reasonable. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. Chair Geng explained that Engineer Hornby’s memorandum recommends a slight modification to the grading plan. During this meeting Hornby suggested an additional condition of approval by Council which is to require Public Works to inspect and if necessary clean the culvert at Glen Road under Glen Road. Commissioner Maddy stated he thought the reason for this fill is to ensure the stormwater drains off of the site and onto the street. Engineer Hornby stated there is not a ditch alongside of Glen Road. The stormwater drain is in a heavily landscaped area. The issue he had been aware of was the culvert was plugged by the landscaping after a very heavy rain. He then stated that last year there was an extreme weather event and there were drainage issues in areas where there had not been any before. He noted that residents providing pictures is helpful. He clarified that when Mr. Brausen took the photos he submitted the hole on Lot 7 had not been filled in. He stated there have been attempts to do an overall neighborhood improvement in the area. The City tried to balance what is allowed by Code, what is allowed by zoning and what the individual property owners’ rights are. He clarified he would not make inspecting and if necessary cleaning out the culvert and storm drain a condition of approval of the C.U.P. Public Works personnel can just be asked to do that because it is more of a City maintenance function. It is not the responsibility of the applicant to do that. He stated staff has found on occasion instances where residents have made modifications to the storm drains and the drains do not function as well. When staff finds those it tries to correct them. Chair Geng stated if residents think there is a problem with a storm drain they should pass that on to Public Works. Commissioner Davis asked if the rough grading is to fill the depression and create the berm and then rough grade both lots as if a similar house was to be built on both Lot 7 and Lot 8. Engineer Hornby affirmed that. Kipp Knutson, 24820 Glen Road, stated after the fill is brought in he asked what will be done to prevent the soil from eroding. Engineer Hornby stated the applicant will be required to establish turf. He will also have to put silt fence up until the vegetation has been established. The applicant’s grading plan has shown the silt fence being there. He clarified that turf can be any non-noxious planting. Geng moved, Bean seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Bob Morlock for the parcels located at 24975 and 24995 Glen Road subject CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 7 of 24 to modifying the grading plan as stated in the July 30, 2015, staff report and asking staff to request Public Works personnel to inspect, and clean out if necessary, the storm drain and the culvert under Glen Road. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – FORMAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONCEPT STAGE APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. He stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider a Shorewood Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment and a Concept Stage approval for the planned unit development (PUD) of the former Minnetonka Country Club property. He noted that people wishing to speak during the Public Testimony portion of this Public Hearing will be called to speak in the order they signed the signup sheet. Director Nielsen explained Mattamy Homes has purchased the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property, located at 24575 Smithtown Road. The property is 118.64 acres in size. The Land Use Plan in the Comp Plan recognizes that land as “Semi-Public”. He displayed a copy of the current Land Use Plan. The property is currently zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential. He displayed a copy of the existing zoning of that property and surrounding area. The applicant has proposed an amendment to the Comp Plan changing the current land use from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per acre)”. That is consistent with the surrounding densities on all sides of the former MCC property. The applicant has proposed to develop 140 single-family residential lots. Of the 140 houses 40 will be age-targeted housing. Approximately 43 percent of the site will remain open space. He displayed a copy of the concept plan showing the circulation system, the lots and the open spaces. To achieve that, the proposal is to change the zoning from R-1A to PUD. PUD is a tool the City has that provides it more flexibility and control of the redevelopment. It allows for the houses to be clustered. They would be built on the higher, better ground. The lower areas would be preserved or restored to a former status. He noted that the developer’s proposal does reflect the work of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The developer submitted a pre-application in January 2015 for a Comp Plan amendment. At that time the City Council hired a planning consultant and appointed people (about 23 Shorewood residents) to the PAC. The core of the PAC was the Planning Commission. The PAC met a number of times this year to review the redevelopment proposal and to make recommendations about the areas surrounding the former MCC property, primarily properties to the north and to the east of the project area. The conclusions of the PAC are contained in a separate report titled Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations dated June 8, 2015. The findings and recommendations were presented to Council in early June. The comments included in the staff report dated July 29, 2015, for this item reflect the conclusions and consensus of the PAC. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Nielsen noted the first part of this Public Hearing deals with the Comp Plan amendment. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 8 of 24 Nielsen noted the PAC concluded that single-family residential was the best use for the site. That use would be consistent with the surrounding area. The PAC did consider other uses for the site such as different housing choices, higher density housing, and possibly commercial in the northeast corner. The PAC recommended housing (possibly senior housing) for the north side of Smithtown Road near County Road 19. The Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Report recommended the same thing. The PAC discussed the possibility of relocating some of the facilities in Badger Park to the MCC site and ultimately recommended against doing that. The PAC thought there could potentially be an opportunity to the north of Badger Park where the commercial strip is to possibly have some type of housing. The developer’s proposal addresses three demographic markets with all three being single-family. A substantial number of the proposed 140 lots will be developed with single-family houses priced higher than some people would like. Per the PAC’s recommendation, the developer has modified its original concept to include developing the northeast corner and northwest corner of the site with age-targeted smaller houses on smaller lots. The developer has decided that some of the lots in the center of the property and maybe some on the south could be suitable for even higher end homes than Mattamy builds. Mattamy is considering bringing in another builder who builds custom houses for a higher price. The concept plan shows about 43 percent of the site as open space some of which is wetlands and potentially a restored wetland which was recommended by the PAC. The original plan had a little more open space. In response to a concern staff had about how the houses would fit on the lots the developer increased the depth of many of the lots by going into some of that original open space area. The ownership and maintenance of that open space is to be determined. He noted that traffic generated as a result of the proposed project was identified as a key issue early on in the pre-application process. He stated the PAC and Council were told that the amount of additional traffic that would be generated from the project was not all that significant when compared to a thriving country club/golf course. He explained the PAC and Council have concluded the problems that currently exist along the Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive collector route are not the problems of the proposed redevelopment. The PAC recommended the traffic concerns about the collector route be studied by a traffic advisory committee composed of residents. That study is to be done in parallel with this redevelopment process. The PAC recommended constructing an off-street, public use trail on the west side of Country Club Road from Smithtown Road down to Yellowstone Trail. That trail would tie into an internal trail system on the site. Nielsen explained Shorewood’s Comp Plan has been subject to the review of the Metropolitan (Met) Council and surrounding communities. An amendment to the Comp Plan will also be subject to review. After the City Council approves the amendment staff will forward the proposed amendment to the Met Council for determination of the “metropolitan significance”, if any, of the project. The amendment can go through a mini review process or a normal review process. The process can take about 60 days because it has to be routed to surrounding communities, school districts, Hennepin County and so forth. He clarified the approval is not the final adoption. Planned Unit Development. Nielsen noted the second part of this Public Hearing deals with establishing a planned unit development (PUD) district on the former MCC property. The Comp Plan specifically recommends using the PUD tool for that site. He clarified that if the project fell through the PUD zoning would revert back to R-1A, Single-Family Residential. If the property were rezoned through the normal zoning process it would be difficult to change the zoning back to R-1A. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 9 of 24 Rezoning – Nielsen explained that establishing a PUD district on the former MCC property provides for greater flexibility and control of the redevelopment. There is flexibility to cluster housing on the better, more buildable ground while preserving natural features (e.g., wetlands, trees and areas with less suitable soils) of the site. The development agreement that results from the PUD establishes the standards for the site and basically becomes the zoning code for the property. By using PUD the City can accommodate the varying housing options proposed by the developer. The logistics and mechanics for managing common and private open space are contained in the PUD provisions. Concept Plan – Nielsen explained the PUD process includes three distinct steps and applications: 1) the Concept Stage; 2) the Development Stage; and, 3) the Final Plan Stage. The applicant has requested approval of his concept plan (a copy of which was included in the meeting packet along with the overall site plan). The Concept Stage sets up the ground rules for the Development Stage which includes a preliminary plat. The details are fleshed out in that Stage. The Final Plan Stage to some extent wraps up all of the previous approvals. It includes a final plat and development agreement. The basic elements of community development set forth in the Shorewood Comp Plan and in the work of the PAC were considered by staff when evaluating the concept plan. The elements include natural resources, land use, transportation, community facilities and housing. The results of the analysis are as follows. – 1. Natural ResourcesAn important aspect of the proposed concept plan is setting aside the low areas with soils less desirable for building sites as open space. The areas became wetlands after the MCC golf course was developed. Prior to the development of the course there are been a large wetland in the southeast area of the former MCC property. It must have been altered or filled in when the course was developed about 100 years ago. It is not subject to any current regulations. There is an opportunity to possible restore part of that old wetland feature. The wetland system in the northeast corner of the site is designated as a city-designated wetland; it is not included in the density calculation. The other wetlands are wetland conservation wetlands. They are protected and have buffers around them. They are not subtracted out of the density calculation. The PAC favored one larger, well designed wetland over several small “pocket” wetlands. The details have to be worked out. The developer has to address drainage on and from the property. Drainage was the second highest priority issue identified. The project is to some degree landlocked. There is an old 24-inch- diameter drainage pipe that goes south from the golf course and ultimately the stormwater flows into Lake Minnewashta. That pipe is deteriorated and clogged with roots. The developer has spoken with representatives from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) about it and was informed that he could maintain the capacity of that pipe as the emergency outflow for this project. The pipe would have to be repaired and restored. The developer has to put in his own ponding areas. There are rules for controlling the rate and volume of runoff that must be complied with. Tree preservation is another natural resource component. There are numerous trees on the property. He displayed an aerial photograph of the site. The trees were planted when the golf course was developed. The emphasis in the proposal is to preserve the trees along the perimeter of the site, to the extent possible, as well as many trees within the site as possible. Many of the trees on the golf course are ash trees and they will likely be harmed by emerald ash borer infestation over the next 10 years. Decisions have to be made with regard to what will become of the ash trees. Those in bad condition will be removed. A decision could be made to treat some of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 10 of 24 the specimen trees. The City has a Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy that developments are subject to. 2. Land Use – The project is entirely single-family residential which is quite consistent with the surrounding areas. The density of 1.22 units per 40,000 square feet is somewhat higher than some of the density to the west of the site and a little lower than what is down to the south and up to the north of the site. The applicant was asked how the size of the houses being proposed would fit on the lots. He was also asked about the possibility of future accessory uses such as decks, patios and swimming pools. The applicant provided three illustrative sketches for the various models of houses the developer intends to build (the building setbacks exhibit shows the sketches). The sketches are for lots 150 deep but the concept plans shows the lots being 180 feet deep. The PUD allows the City to establish other setbacks for this development. That is negotiated as part of the development agreement for the project. Staff has become convinced that the homes and accessory uses will fit. 3. Transportation/Traffic – Nielsen reiterated that overall area traffic will be addressed under a separate study. He explained there are two issues within the project that deserve attention; streets; and trails. As proposed there are only two vehicular access points to/from the development. One is onto Smithtown Road close to where the current entrance is. The other is onto Yellowstone Trail in the southeast corner of the site. The most significant issue relative to streets is the need for an additional access to Smithtown Road. The applicant has been advised of that. That would resolve the excessive cul-de-sac length on the west side of the site plan. It is also consistent with trying to encourage project traffic to use Smithtown/County Road 19 rather than the Country Club Road toYellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive collector route. The apparent solution is an extension of the cul-de-sac street in the northwest corner of the site. Although it would necessitate some wetland alteration there is ample room within the open space to mitigate the wetland loss. Mitigate means that for the amount of wetland filled twice as much must be created somewhere else. He reiterated there will be a trail on the east side of the project site just outside the west side of the Country Club Road right-of-way (ROW). He noted construction of the Smithtown Road sidewalk east extension is likely to begin this fall. That is consistent with the Shorewood Trail Implementation Plan and it is the preference of the PAC. The applicant also shows a perimeter/internal trail system. The City has inadequate street ROW along certain sections of Smithtown Road and Country Club Road. The Country Club Road ROW varies from 33 feet to 66 feet. As part of the subdivision of the former MCC property the City will end up with 66 feet along the entire length of Country Club Road. There is insufficient Smithtown Road ROW along the northwest corner of the site. That additional ROW will have to come later. He noted the City held an informal open house about the proposed redevelopment July 28. During that open house some residents expressed concern about the southerly access point onto Yellowstone Trail. Someone suggested having a cul-de-sac come out on to Country Club Road. That will be discussed as part of the upcoming Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive traffic study. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 11 of 24 4. Community Facilities – Nielsen noted this element has to do with parks and public utilities. a. Parks – Nielsen noted the PAC did not recommend moving any of the Badger Park facilities to the proposed project site. He explained the Shorewood Subdivision Code prescribes park dedication fees of $6,500 per lot. As an alternative, the City could require up to eight percent of the land in the project or cash in lieu of land in the amount of eight percent of the raw value of the land. It would be a little more than the $6,500 per-lot fee. The City Attorney has advised that per State Statutes the developer does get some credit for things such as open space or trails. This will be negotiated with the developer as the project progresses. He stated the Park Commission will consider making a recommendation to Council about park dedication fees during is August 11 meeting. b. Public Utilities – Nielsen noted the City does have adequate public utilities to serve this project. c. City Water – Nielsen explained that municipal water along Smithtown Road will be extended into this project. The current per lot connection fee is $10,000. The developer does get credit for putting watermain in, service stubs and so forth. d. Sanitary and Storm Sewer – Storm sewer is a key issue. That will be subject to review by the City Engineer and by the MCWD. With regard to the sanitary sewer, the Director of Public Works has noted that there is a metro line that comes in across the southeast corner of the site and the developer has to take that into consideration as part of the design. Nielsen noted that in general the proposed Comp Plan amendment and Concept Stage plan appear to be consistent with the recommendations of the PAC. He explained that over 750 area residents were noticed about the open house held on July 28, 2015, about this project. The same group was noticed for this Public Hearing. The notification requirements were greatly exceeded. State Statutes require notification to home owners within 350 feet of the project site. The City Ordinance requires going out 500 feet. The open house notification was extended out to the LRT Trail to the west and north of the project site, from the project site to the border with the City of Excelsior and south to Highway 7. The purpose of the open house was for residents to familiarize themselves with the project and the process to date. The meeting was well attended. Many of the attendees filled out comment sheets. The summary of the comments was included in the meeting packet. Nielsen stated because of the amount of information and the likelihood of a lot of public testimony the Planning Commission may not want to make a recommendation to Council this evening. If the Commission decides to continue this Public Hearing it would be held on Tuesday, August 18. The City has to comply with the 60-day rule, a statutory requirement that requires Council take action on this. If the City does not take action within the required time the application is considered to be approved. State Statutes allow the time to be extended out an additional 60 days for cause. Engineer Hornby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a memorandum from him regarding the concept plan submitted by Mattamy Homes. He considered the concept plan in general and specific items in the plan. He highlighted his memo. Staff has recommended sidewalks be six feet wide when they are along the side of a street. Staff has also recommended there be sidewalk along all of the main roadways (the non-cul-de-sac streets). It is also recommended that one cul-de-sac extend out to Country Club Road. With regard to drainage / water quality improvements, Hornby explained the developer will have to meet the requirements of the City Local Surface Water management Plan (LSWMP) and the MCWD’s CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 12 of 24 requirements. The City and the MCWD restrict the volume of water that can leave the site and the rate at which it can leave the site. The developer has done a lot of detective work related to the drainage pipe that eventually discharges into Lake Minnewashta. The developer has to show it has legal access to the use of the drainage system for the property. With regard to utilities, Hornby noted there is sufficient watermain under Smithtown Road to serve the site. The watermain system on the site will need to be looped to the Smithtown Road watermain. Stubs to Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Club Lane will be required at various locations for future extension. There is plenty of elevation on the site for the development’s sanitary sewer system to connect to the existing Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) sewer that cuts across the southeast corner of the site. The storm sewer would run under the streets and the stormwater facilities (the ponds) would be located outside of the public ROW. Hornby explained there is a need for a secondary access roadway in the northwest or western portion of the site because of the noncompliant length of a proposed cul-de-sac. The preferred roadway would be to connect near Fairway Drive at Smithtown Road. He then explained there is the opportunity to do some wetland restoration on site. He suggested there be more discussion about that. There is potential for wetland creation on the site. That needs to be discussed as the project progresses. Hornby noted the City Council is interested in assembling a traffic advisory committee to study traffic issues and options for traffic along the Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive collector route. Chair Geng asked Engineer Hornby to point to the area on the concept plan where he recommends the third access point be located. Hornby did so – it would be on the northwest corner of the site basically across from Fairway Drive. Commissioner Bean asked if the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy requirements would be part of the development agreement. Director Nielsen responded yes. Nielsen explained that during the Concept Stage tree massing is assessed. It is his understanding that the developer is trying to preserve as many trees on the backs of the lots as possible. The details of that come with the Development Stage plan. Bean then asked Nielsen to walk through the timeline for the PUD process. Director Nielsen explained if the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the Comp Plan amendment and the concept plan during this Public Hearing it would go before Council during its August 24 meeting. If Council approved the amendment and plan during that meeting the developer could move forward with his Development Stage plans. If the Commission continues this Public Hearing to August 18 Council would still consider it on August 24. He stated Council will hold a duplicate public hearing during its meeting. If Council does not take action on August 24 the developer should expect Council to take action on the Comp Plan amendment and the PUD Concept Stage plan during its September 14 meeting. Then it is up to the developer to get all of the Development Stage plans to the City for approval. The earliest that could be done would be to submit an application the first Tuesday in October. That would put Development Stage plans on the Planning Commission’s agenda for the first Tuesday in November. The Planning Commission would hold a public hearing for that. The fastest the Development Stage plans could be considered by Council would be November 23. The earliest Council would approve that would be in the early part of December. If the developer submitted his Final Plan Stage plans by the first Tuesday in January 2016 the Planning Commission could consider them on the first Tuesday in February and it could potentially go before Council on the fourth Monday in February. There could be a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 13 of 24 60-day break in the process during which the Met Council and surrounding cities will do their reviews of the Comp Plan Amendment. Commissioner Bean stated if things moved along perfectly from a timeline perspective the developer could start breaking ground next spring. Director Nielsen noted the developer’s hope is to begin site development next spring. He explained that once the developer has obtained approval for the Concept Stage plan and maybe the Development Stage plan the developer would like to begin removing some of the contaminated soils from the tee boxes and the greens. That is best done during the winter months. The developer would likely be looking for approval for advanced grading of those areas. Bean asked if there were any concerns about the soil under where the equipment was maintained. Nielsen noted the developer has the results from soil tests done all over the site. Bean stated he thought he heard that the former old wetland located on the southeast corner of the site does not have to be restored. Director Nielsen responded that is correct. Chair Geng stated that would only happen if it was negotiated into the development agreement. Nielsen noted there will be something done in that area with respect to drainage. Nielsen stated for those areas near that old wetland site that have drainage issues the hope is that restoring the wetland or having some ponding there would positively impact those areas. Bean asked if there has been discussion with representatives from the Minnewashta Elementary School about the development. Nielsen stated that based on discussions early on the representatives did not think the development would have much impact on the School. The project is being staged over four to five years. There is some capacity in schools within the School District where it has accommodated open enrollment and the indication has been if local needs must be accommodated the District would cut back on open enrollment. Bean commented that if the Minnetonka School District is such a prime District then having to live in the District benefits everyone from a home value perspective. Commissioner Johnson stated if the trails are all going to be private he asked how that would affect the park dedication fees. Director Nielsen stated that for the most part park dedication fees are separate from trails. Nielsen noted the PAC and staff recommend that the trails be public, both perimeter and internal, and that the developer be given some sort of credit for that. That will be negotiated as part of the development agreement. Chair Geng recessed the Public Hearing at 8:51 P.M. Chair Geng reconvened the Public Hearing at 8:57 P.M. Chair Geng invited Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, to come forward. Mr. Packer noted that he, on behalf of Mattamy Homes, has been in discussions with the City for about the last seven months. He also was an observer during PAC meetings. Mr. Packer explained that Mattamy Homes was established in 1978 in Toronto, Ontario. It currently is the largest homebuilder in Canada. It is privately owned by the original founder Peter Gilgan. Mr. Gilgan comes to all development sites once a year. Mattamy has four Canadian divisions and six United States divisions. Its annual revenues total $1.3 billion. It had the financial power to withstand the recession and it continues to have that power. It has built more than 60,000 houses this year in more than 160 communities. It currently is the largest private single family home builder in Minnesota and the fourth largest when publicly held builders are included. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 14 of 24 He noted Mattamy brought its pre-application before the Planning Commission in January. He explained it had originally proposed building 121 single-family “traditional” homes. Based on a suggestion from the PAC it has revised its proposal to include 100 single-family traditional homes and 40 age-targeted homes (a home where all the main living is on one level of about 1,800 square feet). The development will be clustered on land more suitable for development. As the plans evolved a lot of the open space at the edge of the development went away. Nothing got closer to the adjacent homes. The open space was incorporated into the lots. Stormwater will be managed in a creative and visually appealing way. He explained that at the suggestion of the PAC, Mattamy will provide passive, public open space, trail corridors and other natural habitat. Mattamy has liability concerns about having public walkways through large areas of private property. Mattamy and the City need to discuss if the land under the trails will be public or private. Mattamy will attempt to create a flexible plan that allows for multiple points of vehicular access depending on the City’s recommendations. Mattamy will make a concerted effort to be mindful of tree preservation. Mattamy has tagged, labeled and catalogued all of the trees within 200 feet of the center line of the street. The trees are mature and so every time there is a strong wind some trees come down. Some large maples have holes in them. The trees have to be evaluated to determine if they are healthy enough to be left standing. Some of the Planning Commissioners and some Councilmembers went to one of Mattamy’s developments located in the City of Victoria where there is a certain housing style. There is a similar housing style in its development in North Oaks. Of the 53 lots there 40 have been sold in less than one year. He displayed graphics or photographs of various housing styles. He noted that Director Nielsen reviewed a lot of the suggestions staff has made regarding things like street access points, trails and so forth. He stated the City has been provided a grading plan for drainage. He suggested Mattamy representatives and staff discuss how to design the large open space filled with stormwater management features. He highlighted how the internal trail system will flow on the redeveloped site. There will not be any trails directly adjacent to Smithtown Road. He explained that Mattamy has discussed two entrances onto Smithtown Road. From Mattamy’s perspective both pose problems. The middle cul-de-sac occurs on a downhill slope on Smithtown Road. There would be some sight line issues there. On the northwest cul-de-sac Mattamy has proposed to build an emergency vehicle access out of there; it would be a wide trail emergency vehicles could use. Staff has proposed punching out a cul-de-sac to line up with Fairway Drive. That would require filling the only unaltered wetland on the site in the northwest corner. He then explained that generally Mattamy wants to build different products with each phase of the development. The first phase would be on the northeast corner and include about 20 age-targeted products, traditional single-family products and potentially some custom built homes in the $1 million plus range. The second phase would be to connect everything down to Yellowstone Trail on the southeast side. The third and final phase would be development of the northwest corner. The three phases would be developed over five to six years. He noted the site might be graded before house construction begins. Mr. Packer concluded his remarks. Commissioner Bean stated that although it may not be relative to the concept plan he asked Mr. Packer to talk about to what, if any, degree there will be a homeowners association (HOA) tied into Mattamy’s plan. Mr. Packer noted that Mattamy has HOAs with all of its development projects. They are there for entrance monuments if for no other reason. Bean asked what would be covered by the HOA. Mr. Packer CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 15 of 24 explained that generally it would be maintenance of any common areas. For this development it would also be the age-targeted properties. For them it would be “mow and blow”. A master HOA would maintain the entrance monuments. There would be a monument at each entrance. He does not envision an HOA taking care of more than that. He noted that sometimes refuse hauling is thrown in. Garbage cans would go out once a week. Bean asked Mr. Packer to comment on the street lighting plan. What does it typically look like? Mr. Packer stated that is a City requirement and either the City designs it or the electric company designs it. He commented that usually street lights are required as part of any development. But, at North Oaks they are not because property owners do not want them. Director Nielsen clarified that Shorewood’s policy is based on neighborhood demand. If the neighborhood wants street lighting it has to petition for it. Bean then asked Mr. Packer if Mattamy’s market research indicates it will be able to sell the number of homes it proposes to build. Mr. Packer explained the Minnetonka School District is one of the top rated districts in Minnesota and Minnetonka High School is the top rated high school in the State. People want their children to attend school in a highly rated school district. The top concern Mattamy’s potential buyers raise is about the school district. The school district drives demand considerably. There aren’t opportunities for 100 homes to be built in a location like the former MCC property. The market analysis supports the idea that Mattamy can sell two homes a month over the life of the project. That is further bolstered by offering homes for a different target market and different price range. The age-targeted product will start around $450,000. The traditional product will base out at $650,000 – to $700,000. The customs homes will be at $1 million plus. Bean went on to ask if the staging is based on the number of homes sold. Will the build out be sped up or slowed down based on how properties are selling? Mr. Packer indicated it would. Mr. Packer reiterated the first phase will include the three market segments – the age-targeted, the traditional and the $1 million plus products. When that is complete Mattamy will wait to see how long it takes for those to sell. Mr. Packer noted that a lot of the phasing is infrastructure driven. There are 14 lots for the $1 million plus products. Mr. Packer noted that Mattamy does not build in advance and it rarely builds a spec. Mattamy will not build infrastructure in advance unless it absolutely has to. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 9:19 P.M. Chair Geng stated that people have been at the Public Hearing a long time and he assumes there are a number of people who want to speak. He asked that each individual wanting to speak keep their comments to 2 – 3 minutes. If someone has previously addressed the point someone was going to make he asked that upcoming speaker to please abbreviate their comments by indicating agreement or disagreement. If people are more comfortable submitting written arguments the Planning Commission welcomes those as well. They would become part of the record and be reviewed by the City Council. He asked Engineer Hornby to call out the first person on the sign in sheet. Ken Huskins, 24075 Mary Lake Trail, noted that although he will summarize his comments to be more expedient he stated he wanted his comments submitted verbatim into the record. He also noted that his comments this evening are primarily about the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) process. He submitted a hardcopy of his following remarks after summarizing them. “My name is Ken Huskins. My wife, Ruth Lane, and I are Shorewood residents and taxpayers, residing at 24075 Mary Lake Trail. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission about your consideration of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) re-development application by Mattamy Homes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 16 of 24 I accept that Mattamy Homes, as owners of the former MCC property, has a right and expectation to build homes on this parcel. Yet, as many other Shorewood residents do, I have grave concerns about this redevelopment project and the course of action taken by the City Council and Staff to date. You only have to read the residents comments from the recent Open House, to know that many residents are worried about the impact on our neighborhoods. Some, but not all, of my concerns are the following: 1. Shorewood City Staff are liberally using the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) report as foundational to the positions they are taking after review of the Mattamy application. This is flawed for the following reasons: a. Stantec facilitated the work of the PAC. Stantec, and Stantec alone, fed facts and figures to the PAC, which have not been critically challenged or corroborated by any non-Stantec experts. b. On several occasions, John Shardlow of Stantec reminded the PAC that their role was as a 'focus group only'. Not a recommendation or decision body. Anyone who has ever participated in a focus group already knows that you are simply asked to react to what you are told or shown. c. The PAC report was orchestrated and prepared by Stantec and was nearly devoid of any positions other than ones supportive of the Mattamy Homes project. Case in point: a claim that traffic increase on the adjacent roads would be 'insignificant' as a result of this huge housing development. Anyone living in the area knows that this cannot be true, as traffic using the 'cut-thru' corridor has increased steadily since Cub Foods located at Rt. 7 and 41. Common sense tells you that 140 more homes in the area will create more than 'insignificant' increased traffic. I am familiar with Shorewood's Mission Statement. I interpret 'quality public services', 'healthy environment', and 'visionary leadership' to include safe and adequate road infrastructure and aggressive enforcement of speed limits both for the near and long term. d. That City Staff has placed so much trust in the PAC report shows just how little critical evaluation they have done. Just consider the following, taken directly from a public memo authored by City Planner Director Nielsen, dated January 1, 2015: " ...the City Council proposes to enlist the services of an independent planning consultant to oversee the public information process and to offer a ‘menu of options’ for the subject property and its surrounding areas. One of the challenges posed to the consultants is to try to coordinate their efforts with those of the developer.” So, what was Stantec’s specific rule with regard to the PAC? Was it to be truly independent or was it to coordinate, represent, and even advocate for Mattamy Homes’ position? Why has the staff not sought out a fuller ‘menu of options’? 2. While retained by the Shorewood City Council, Stantec has been, and continues to be paid indirectly by Mattamy Homes. Fees paid by the City of Shorewood are being reimbursed to the City by Mattamy Homes. In following the money, it is reasonable to question that Stantec could be considered an agent of Mattamy Homes, thereby establishing the possibility of a conflict of interest. The Shorewood Mayor, City Council, Staff, and the Planning Commission, as bodies that represent Shorewood residents, must do everything in their power to make recommendations and decisions with residents' best interests in sight. Working from accurate, objective information and analyses unfiltered or biased by outside agents such as Stantec is your responsibility and your CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 17 of 24 accountability. Shorewood residents should expect and accept nothing less. I have shared these, and many other concerns, orally and in writing, directly with the Mayor and City Council members over the past 2+ months. Only Mayor Zerby and Council Member Labadie have responded and not once have I received a response as to why my concerns are unfounded or invalid. More recently, I have communicated many of my concerns to reporters at the Star Tribune who previously have reported on the impending redevelopment project. I have been assured of their on-going interest in reporting on the redevelopment project and its impact on Shorewood. Finally, I have made it known to Mayor Zerby that I have high interest to serve on a new Advisory Committee that will take a much deeper look at the local traffic issues and possible solutions. Members of the Planning Commission, I urge you to leave open the very real probability that the findings from this new traffic advisory committee will be markedly different from those reflected in the Stantec-led PAC report. I request that these remarks, hardcopy of which I will now provide to the Planning Commission, be submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you. Ken Huskins 24075 Mary Lake Trail Shorewood, MN 55331 E-mail: krh321@gmail.com Mobile: 612-310-3994” George Greenfield, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, asked that the Planning Commission take two things into consideration. He stated there have been 70 years of chemicals put down on the golf course. During a conversation he had with Mayor Zerby the topic of using mercury to treat the greens was mentioned. He asked what is going to happen when the earth on the golf course area is turned over, rained on, snowed on, and has equipment driven over it. He stated all of the houses west and south of the golf course are serviced by private wells. Therefore, it is a legitimate concern by residents in that area that there could be some danger to their wells and that needs to be addressed to protect the water supply of those residents. He asked if anyone has researched the labor practices of Mattamy Homes. If that has not been done he suggested doing it. He stated that he does not want people working across the street from where he lives being paid $11 or $13 per hour to build $1 million houses. He thought the contractor who begins this redevelopment project should have a history of paying a prevailing wage or hiring union help as subcontractors. That is part of the overall justice that government should ensure is in place when there is a public project of this magnitude. He thanked the Planning Commission for giving him the opportunity to speak. Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail (“cut-thru”), asked for a copy of the engineering report. He was not sure how many people in the audience had been provided with a copy of the Planning staff report. He noted that he would be willing to stop by City hall to pick a copy of those items up. He stated he also wants to see a copy of the tree inventory. He is a landscape architect and he is very interested in trees. There are a couple of trees on the MCC site that he photographed about 25 years ago. The trees are still alive and he would like to make sure they are not taken down. He then stated that when he was at the July 28 open house for this project he let Mayor Zerby and Director Nielsen know that he would like to be a member of the traffic advisory committee. He thought a number of his neighbors need to be on it as well. He understands it is important to have city-wide representation on that committee. From his vantage point mainly having residents from one part of the City should not be a problem. He asked what the traffic route will be for the construction vehicles during all three stages of construction for the project. Director Nielsen noted that as part of the Development Stage plans the developer has to submit a traffic CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 18 of 24 management plan. Mr. Hasek asked that the City require the construction vehicles to use the Highway 7 to Country Road 19 route and not the Lake Linden Drive to Yellowstone Trail to Country Club Road collector route. Allen Thomas, 5715 Star Lane, expressed concern about traffic. He has heard it stated that there will not be much of a change in traffic volume between what there currently is and what there will be after the houses are developed and occupied. He stated if the golf course was thriving and there were four golfers golfing every ten minutes (24 golfers in an hour) from 7:00 – 9:00 A.M. that is 48 golfers. If all of them drove to the course separately that would be 48 vehicles. Assuming one of the adults in the 140 homes works that amounts to at least 140 vehicles. Sometimes both adults work so that would increase the number of vehicles more. And, during the school year there may be children who have to get to school. That could amount to about 250 vehicles moving around from 7:00 – 9:00 A.M. There is already a backup of traffic at County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. He noted he would like to see the report that indicates there would not much of a change in traffic volume. He then stated if it is true that representatives from the firm that coordinated PAC activities work for or are closely related to Mattamy Homes that would be a concern for him. He went on to state that all the comments he has heard about this project are about what is bad. He has not heard anything about what will be good for the residents of Shorewood because of the project. Joan Wright, 6110 Club Valley Road, stated she and her husband Rob own the property located across from the proposed southerly access point onto the former MCC property. They have two small children. From their vantage point it needs to be a four-way stop there. There is a lot of speeding on Yellowstone Trail. At the three-way stop at the intersection of Yellowstone Trail and Country Club Road there is a slight hill. Drivers speed up and come down that hill. Neighbors behind their property come flying off their driveway and go up Yellowstone Trail. She noted they have lived at that location since 2001. She stated patrol officers could park in their yard and issue many speeding tickets. She asked the City to make it a four-way stop. She then stated the Planning Commission and Council will make decisions that affect residents’ lives. The noise from construction will go on for five or six years. She noted the reason they bought their property was because it was near the golf course and it was a quiet neighborhood. She asked how the development will be positive for current residents in that area when $1 million houses will be built. She stated their home was built in 1958 and she does not envision the development helping increase the value of their property. What she sees in her taxes each year is their home value has been dropping. She then stated the development will clearly impact their lives and it is impacting their children’s lives. She asked the Commissioners to keep that in mind. She stated their property abuts Yellowstone Trail and she is concerned about drainage impacts. Luke Eichmeyer, 5885 Seamans Drive, noted his property borders the golf course to the west. He explained Mattamy’s original proposal was for 121 houses. With that there would have been two or three houses near his back yard. After Mattamy decided to put in the age-targeted houses there will five or six houses near his back yard. He participated in the MindMixer website to gather information and provide feedback; he found it to be very helpful. The top vote getter on the website’s pole was for preservation of greenspace. The second was for reduced traffic. Third was preservation of hardwood trees. And fourth was for public park and recreation space. The amount of open space in the recent proposal is quite a bit less than in the original proposal. There will be more traffic because of the increase in houses. He thought that what is being proposed is contrary to what residents want. Whitley Mott, 24890 Yellowstone Trail, noted his property is as low as you can go next to the former MCC property. He stated his greatest concern is about drainage. He thought Mr. Packer has been very good about helping with the decline of the MCC golf course. The owners of properties in the vicinity of the former MCC property are very concerned about how the redevelopment will impact them. He noted CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 19 of 24 that he understands that Mattamy Homes has the right to develop the former MCC property; it purchased that property. He stated the original proposal was for 121 houses. The new proposal is for 140 units [40 of them will be age-targeted units]. He took an informal hand-raising poll of property owners in the audience. All preferred to have just 121 houses. Karen Tetzlaff, 6100 Rampart Court, asked if anyone could give her an idea of how the proposed development compares to other developments in the City such as Shorewood Oaks. Director Nielsen stated he thought there are 73 lots in the Shorewood Oaks development. Near Mountain was originally proposed for 273. The developer ended up building about 220 units. The Waterford development was for about 90 lots. Ms. Tetzlaff noted her major concern is traffic patterns, primarily on Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail. She stated that she thought the idea of a traffic advisory committee is good but she questioned how much impact it will have. She noted that she would be interested in serving on that committee. Anecdotally she mentioned that many years ago she served on a panel of citizens which talked about CUB Foods. That panel was told by some company that there would be a very insignificant increase in traffic. That is not how things turned out. Therefore, she is quite leery when she again hears there will be an insignificant increase in traffic that will be generated from the development. Henry Miles, 25035 Mary Lake Trail, routed a copy of his prepared comments to the members of the Planning Commission and staff. He asked that his remarks be submitted verbatim into the record. “Thank you Chairman Geng and Planning Commission members for your service to our community and the opportunity to address you tonight. My name is Henry Miles. My wife and I have been residents of Shorewood for 17 years. We live at 24035 Mary Lake Trail. I am speaking this evening because of my concerns that the City of Shorewood in considering the Minnetonka Country Club development has not adequately addressed serious traffic issues of which it is aware. Going back to the beginning of this process, these long-standing issues have been communicated to the Mayor and City Council, and the City's agents including Stantec, by residents verbally and through emails, and on-line via MinnetonkaMindmixerCC.com. As a context for my remarks, I refer specifically to the issue of traffic along what is referred to as the "cut-through" including Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail, and Lake Linden Drive as bounded by the Smithtown / County Road 19 and the Highways 7 / 41 intersections. The cut-through and its southern terminus have also been described by staff, including the City's Planning Director, in various documents and memoranda in possession of the City Council, as quote "substandard", quote "severely congested", and quote "not improved to collector standards". In fact, even our Interim Chief of Police - a 30-year veteran of the Edina Police Department including 10 year as their Chief of Police - has questioned how effective his department can be with traffic law enforcement given volume and road design issues along the cut-through. In other words, those who oversee and police these roads agree that the cut-through is seriously deficient. It is important for us to recognize that Mattamy Homes, their consultant Spack, and the City's consultant Stantec who is reimbursed by Mattamy do not share our concerns about traffic volume and congestion created by the planned development. Why would they; they are outsiders, they don't live here, and they don't suffer the frustration and danger of these roads on a daily basis as CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 20 of 24 we do. And, honestly, when have you ever heard a developer say that their project would have a negative impact. This does not mean that they are bad people; they are in business to profit. But when they and their consultants claim that the development will not add materially to traffic along the cut- through - when they suggest, in effect, that the Lake Linden Drive / Highways 7 / 41 intersection will become, 'only just a little bit more severely congested' - we all must reflect on the conflicts of interest that arise when any developer postures to get their project approved. We all should also carefully consider when we read their reports and listen to them speak that when the development is completed and last home is sold, Mattamy and its consultants will be long gone on to their next project and they will be unaccountable for the after-effects that we as citizens of Shorewood will be left to endure. I also want to be as clear as I can be on another point, and that is that is it not fair to blame Mattamy for traffic system flaws that preexisted their application. However, this does not mean that the City of Shorewood can or should avoid these issues now given the extra traffic load that the development will add to the road system especially on those parts of the cut-through that are contiguous to Mattamy's property. With this as background, I request that the City of Shorewood require that Mattamy Homes fulfill three requirements as a condition of approval of their plan: • First, Mattamy should be required to shorten the length of their cul-de-sacs projecting toward Country Club Road. • Second, Mattamy should be required to eliminate a few homes along that side of the development with the objective of ensuring that the City of Shorewood has a deeper right- of-way in order to convert Country Club Road into a divided and wavy parkway to calm the traffic that travels along it. The idea for a parkway is Mayor Zerby's with which I am in complete agreement. • Finally, Mattamy should be required to ensure that the parkway has both bike and pedestrian paths next to and generally parallel to Country Club Road that are accessible near the corners of that street near Smithtown Road and Yellowstone Trail. These are reasonable requirements for two reasons. First, the density of the project was 'originally advertised' to be 121 homes is now been expanded to be 140 homes so Mattamy has some lots to 'give back'. Secondly, based on historical sale statistics, the $800,000 to $1,000,000 homes that Mattamy has said it will build will take many years to absorb meaning that to give back some lots today should not present a hardship on them. The opportunity to implement a reasonable design for the development proposed by Mattamy will present itself only once: now. Residents of the City of Shorewood should not expect that there will be opportunities for the City to force Mattamy to address traffic safety and congestion issues in the future. It is the City of Shorewood's responsibility to ensure that the issues are addressed up front before approval is given to Mattamy to proceed. In conclusion, the City of Shorewood has a responsibility to address traffic issues that have repeatedly been brought to its attention by residents and staff and that should have been addressed in the past. Furthermore, the City also has an obligation to provide for the future safety and sustainable growth of our community by conditioning approval of development proposals on the adoption of reasonable measures to address predictable and communicated CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 21 of 24 traffic concerns. I therefore ask the Planning Commission as appointed by the City Council as the elected representatives of the residents of Shorewood to seize this important opportunity and recommend the redesign as Country Club Road as I have outlined. As for Mattamy, I hope they will demonstrate their good faith toward our community by offering to adjust their plans and make the accommodations I propose without asking for consideration from the City of Shorewood. I ask that these remarks, hardcopy of which I just provided to the Planning Commission and staff, be submitted verbatim into the record. Thank you again.” Chris Gehrke, 24650 Smithtown Road, noted his wife was not able to attend this meeting, but he does speak on her behalf. They have a 17 months old son. He stated his property is located across from the proposed north side access. He asked if staff had any input on where the developer plans on having the access points. The vehicles lights from people leaving the site on the north will shine directly into his living room. He has concerns about light pollution and the entrance monument. The vehicle traffic on Smithtown Road wanting to get on County Road 19 at times backs up to at least his property. That will only get worse once the proposed houses are occupied. He asked to be provided with a copy of a traffic study report; it has not been made public. Commissioner Bean clarified the traffic study has not been done. Mr. Gehrke stated he would like to be a member of the traffic advisory committee. He noted that he understands that Mattamy Homes has the right to develop the former MCC property which it purchased. He expressed hope that the developer can appreciate the concerns the property owners have. David Cooley, 24725 Smithtown Road, noted that the MindMixer website would never allow him to put down drainage issues that affect the lots along Mattamy’s proposed lots #53 – #59. He explained there are serious drainage issues on his lot. And there are drainage issues on the lot that backs up to lot #59. His lot used to be tiled and it used to drain onto the former golf course. It has been filled in over the years and he has not been able to retile it. As a result, he has water backup on his lot. The grounds keeper for the former golf course had allowed him to pump his water out into the buckthorn on the former MCC property. He will not be able to continue doing that when the homes are built. He commented that he lives in a tear-down house. He asked if the City has plans to redevelop the area around his property including his property. He then asked what the City is going to do with a lot that is under water for about 1.5 months each spring. He stated something needs to be done about drainage issues. The stormwater is never going to be able to drain down past lot #59 to the wetland like lake. Mr. Cooley stated the building setbacks exhibit included in the meeting packet does not show the rear yard setbacks. He then stated currently stormwater runs off proposed lots #53 and #54 like a river. Because of the curb and gutter that will be put in that should help reduce stormwater flow on the former MCC site. He went on to state it might have been nice if the soil testing of the site had been done by an independent agent so it would have more credibility. He noted he hoped oil and pesticides were not dumped on the ground near where the equipment sheds had been. Mr. Cooley then stated from his perspective many city councils have “kicked the can down the road” with regard to the traffic issues in the area. Smithtown Road also has traffic issues. During the 20 years he has lived on his property traffic has more than doubled in the area. Because Smithtown Road is straight and flat traffic moves along faster than on Country Club Road. He thought making improvements to the roadways near the project site would be of value to the developer. He questioned who would want to buy one of the new lots and houses if they will have difficulty exiting the development. He thought it is time for the City to make improvements to roadways in the area. He noted that it will never be possible to CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 22 of 24 eliminate the use of the cut-thru collector route for traffic coming from outside of the neighborhood. He encouraged the City to slow the traffic flow. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 10:04 P.M. Chair Geng noted there are two requests before the Planning Commission. They are the Comp Plan amendment and the Concept Stage approval for Mattamy Home’s PUD of the former MCC property. He asked the Commissioners how they want to proceed. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to take two weeks to assess what he has heard and then have the Commissioners discuss the items again during an August 18, 2015, Commission meeting. Commissioner Davis concurred with that. Commissioner Bean concurred with that. He stated he has a list of comments/questions that he would like some feedback on. Commissioner Maddy stated that because three Commissioners have already stated they would like to continue this Public Hearing he suggested doing that. Chair Geng noted he would support continuing the Public Hearing. He stated he thought it appropriate to digest the comments the Commissioners heard this evening. Commissioner Bean stated if the Public Hearing is continued he asked whether or not Public Testimony would be taken again. Or, is that done? Chair Geng stated the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing has been closed. But, the Planning Commission could decide to reopen it on August 18. Commissioner Johnson stated if the Commissioners wanted to ask questions of residents who spoke this evening he asked if that necessitates re-opening the Public Testimony portion. Geng thought it would have to be re-opened. Commissioner Bean stated he thought the Commissioners and staff would try to addresses the questions by residents on August 18 independent of their being present at that time. Chair Geng encouraged residents to come to the continuation of the Public Hearing if they want to. Ed. Hasek, 24310 Yellowstone Trail, stated some of the residents have some lengthy questions for the Planning Commission. He asked what the best format is for submitting them and he asked what the timetable is. He wants to ensure they get read and considered during the continuation of the Public Hearing. Chair Geng stated it would be preferable if the comments were typed. The questions should be sent to Director Nielsen and the earlier they can be submitted the better. He noted that generally the Planning Commission receives a meeting packet on the Thursday before the next Planning Commission meeting. Director Nielsen asked that the questions be submitted by August 12. Mr. Hasek stated he does not recollect the Planning Commission ever restricting people’s comment time to 2 – 3 minutes. He asked if the questions should be hand delivered or sent via email. Director Nielsen responded email is handy and noted the City will accept written comments as well. In response to another question from Hasek, Nielsen noted staff will take care of getting the questions/emails to the Planning Commissioners and to City Council. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 23 of 24 Chair Geng clarified he restricted comments to 2 – 3 minutes to ensure everyone wishing to speak had to the opportunity to do so. He also clarified that the concept plans being considered are the developer’s and not the City’s. He reiterated what the stages are in the PUD process and described them. Mr. Huskins stated there is a concept called momentum and another concept called expectation of momentum. The Concept Stage is critical and key and he encouraged people not to downplay its importance. He cautioned against letting residents believe that they can wait to make their thoughts known until there is a very detailed plan. He thought the time to get the concept correct is now. Director Nielsen asked where the meeting should be held. A member of the audience stated she thought there will be more residents present on August 18. Some did not come because of Night to Unite events. Nielsen stated it should be held at the Southshore Center. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Concept Stage plans approval for Mattamy Homes’ planned unit development of the former Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575 Smithtown Road to the Planning Commission’s August 18, 2015, meeting which will be held at the Southshore Center. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng commended the residents for the dignified way in which they conducted themselves. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 10:19 P.M. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Davis noted erosion control basket near Meadowview Lane is over half full of sand and debris. She then noted her husband has dug out the catch basis near her property and she has told him not to do that. Engineer Hornby stated he will pass that information on to Public Works. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a continuation of the Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the approval of the Concept Stage plans for the planned unit development of the former Minnetonka Country Club property slated for the August 18, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC • Other CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 4, 2015 Page 24 of 24 7. ADJOURNMENT Maddy moved, Bean seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 4, 2015, at 10:26 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder