Loading...
PC-11-17-15 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2015 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, and Maddy (arrived at 7:02 P.M.); Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Commissioner Johnson APPROVAL OF AGENDA Bean moved, Geng seconded, approving the agenda for November 17, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 6, 2015 Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Bean abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY (AUTO SALES) Applicant: William Kasper, WS Sales of Shorewood Location: 19245 State Highway 7 Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She 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. She noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on November 23, 2015. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for outdoor sales and display for automobile sales for William Kasper, with WS Sales of Shorewood, 19245 State Highway 7. Director Nielsen explained William Kasper, with WS Sales of Shorewood, proposes to operate a used car sales lot behind the office building located at 19245 State Highway 7. The property is zoned C-1, General Commercial. The C-1 District allows open and outdoor sales by C.U.P. The property contains approximately 18,152 square feet of area. It has frontages on both Vine Hill Road and the service road for CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 2 of 12 Highway 7. The site is currently occupied by an office building containing approximately 3000 square feet of area on about one and one half levels of building. The zoning and land use surrounding the site are as follows: North: State Highway 7, then commercial in Deephaven East: Restaurant, zoned C-1, and residential in Minnetonka South: Self-storage facility, zoned C-1 West: Small office building, zoned C-1. The applicant proposes to lease a small office at the rear of the building and use a portion of the existing parking lot for a limited display of cars for sale. The applicant’s proposal is based on a similar C.U.P. issued in 1998 to Pelican Car Company for the same site. Pelican operated for a short time as a low-key operation. He noted the meeting packet contained a copy of a site plan, showing the existing building and proposed parking layout. It also contained photos of the building and rear parking area. He explained the applicant proposes to display as many as six cars for sale in the rear parking area, noting it was not a great display area With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen reviewed how Mr. Kasper’s request complies with Section 1201.21 Subd. 4.e. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. 1. The proposed outdoor sales area cannot be larger than the gross floor area of the principal use. The office building contains 3000 square feet of floor area. A car parking space occupies 180 square feet. Therefore, 16 spaces for auto display could be located on the property. The required parking will dictate how much display area can be allowed on the site as noted in item 5 below. 2. The proposed auto display area is only visible to adjoining residential properties on the east side of Vine Hill Road, in Minnetonka. These residences are fairly well screened already. He noted that earlier in the day the City received a copy of a letter (a copy of which is on file) from the owners of the property located at 5117 Vine Hill road which is across the street from the proposed used car lot. Harry and Heather Millen expressed concern that the used car lot could impact the residential use of their property. 3. The applicant proposes no additional site lighting. Lighting from adjoining property is apparently adequate for security purposes. 4. The area proposed for auto display is already paved. The City’s Ordinance requires the display to be on some type of surface. 5. The display area cannot take up parking area that is required for the principal use. Based on the size of the building, 15 spaces are required (one space per 200 square feet of floor area). The site has 26 spaces if the parking lot is striped as proposed on the site plan. That would leave 11 spaces for display vehicles. The applicant has indicated that he would need no more than five to ten spaces. 6. The 1998 C.U.P. for this property addressed several of the negative aspects often associated with used car lots such as excessive signage and attention-getting devices (banners, balloons, strobe lights, price signs painted on windshields and so forth). If approved, the C.U.P. for WS Sales should contain similar restrictions. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 3 of 12 7. As proposed, the applicant’s request is consistent with the requirements set forth in Section 1201.04 Subd.1.(d) (general requirements for conditional uses) of the Zoning Code. Nielsen stated as with the 1998 case, the WS Sales of Shorewood proposal is different than a typical used car lot. Assuming WS Sales will be operated similar to how Pelican Car Company operated staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant should submit a detailed signage plan showing the size and location of proposed signs. The applicant has indicated that its business sign would be located on the free standing sign in front of the building. Attention-getting devices should not be allowed. Price signs on the cars should be limited to small signs (maximum 3-inch lettering) inside the vehicle. 2. The display of cars should be limited to no more than ten designated spaces in the rear parking area. The display area should be clearly marked with small signs marking the display spaces. 3. No repair of vehicles shall be allowed on the site. 4. Lighting shall be limited to that which currently exists on the site. 5. The parking lot must be striped according to the plan on the site plan. The portion of the parking lot shown as “to be removed” was removed for the 1998 application. Due to the narrow aisle width shown for the angled parking, which is necessary to achieve the required number of parking and display spaces, a “Do Not Enter” sign should be posted at the Vine Hill Road Driveway. 6. Cars must be delivered to the site on small trucks or driven in. No on-street loading shall be allowed. 7. The parking lot striping and signage must be in place before cars are delivered to the property for sale. Nielsen noted that Mr. Kasper was present. Mr. Kasper noted that his partner is Susan Stonefield. He explained their business would be a small operation where they would purchase cars at auctions wholesale. They plan on advertising the cars on Craig’s List. The cars would be displayed on the parking spaces in the back. He noted the state requires parking for five vehicles and that is what their target is. Vice-Chair Davis asked which five spots the cars would be parked on. Mr. Kasper stated the owner of the property has not determined that yet. Davis asked how wide the one-way driving aisle would be. Director Nielsen responded it would be 22 feet wide or less and explained if there were to be 90° parking spaces the aisle would be narrower. Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Kasper if he was willing to accept the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Mr. Kasper responded he was. Council Liaison Woodruff asked if there is an office involved. Mr. Kasper stated their corner office would be on the south side of the building. Their hours of operation would be displayed on the door to the office. Vice-Chair Davis asked what the proposed hours would be. Mr. Kasper responded 9:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M. and noted there would be a sign out in front. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 4 of 12 Commissioner Bean asked if people know what the other businesses operating out of the building require for parking. Director Nielsen explained Mark Sass, the owner of the building, told him there is much more parking than the businesses need. Nielsen noted that employees at the restaurant next to the site often park on Mr. Sass’ lot. There is no authorization for them to do that and that would likely have to end if this proposal moves forward. Nielsen reiterated that the City Ordinance requires one space per 200 square feet of floor area for the building. He stated there is no intent to stipulate which spaces are for which tenants. Bean asked if designating the spaces should be considered. Nielsen clarified the spaces for displaying cars will be designated as such. Bean asked if there is a suggestion for how the display spaces should be striped. Nielsen stated he thought there would be a small placard signs on each of the display spaces. He explained that if there were to be reserved parking that would be between the landlord and the tenants. In response to a question from Vice-Chair Davis, Mr. Kasper stated there would be a small informational sign hanging from the rearview mirrors in the cars that are for sale. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M. Director Nielsen reiterated that the Planning Commissioners found a copy of a letter from Harry and Heather Millen at the dais this evening expressing concern that the used car lot could impact the residential use of their property. They have four young children. He stated they had concerns that drivers may want to turn around in the middle of the roadway or turn around in their driveway. Speeding and congestion on Vine Hill Road are also concerns. He did not think the proposed used car sales business would generate a lot of additional traffic. Commissioner Bean concurred with that last statement. Commissioner Bean stated he does not think any of the businesses operating out of that building generate a great deal of traffic. Vice-Chair Davis commented she thought the restaurant business generates more traffic. Connor Bean, 5285 St. Albans Bay Road, stated teenagers often hang out on the property located at 19245 State Highway 7 when they have nothing better to do. He asked if the new business owners plan on installing security cameras and if so what will the other business owners think about that. He also asked what the residents living along Vine Hill Road will feel about the increased need for security for the cars for sale. Mr. Kasper stated he does not intend to mount security cameras and noted that he thought just the opposite of what Mr. Bean has observed on the site will take place. He stated with cars parked there after hours he thought there would be less opportunity for mischief to take place. Vice-Chair Davis asked if there is lighting back there. Commissioner Bean stated there is lighting on the public storage building but not specifically on the lot. The storage lighting is on all night long. Davis asked if there is any reason to believe there would be vandalism. Director Nielsen stated he thought there is enough activity at the restaurant to keep vandalism down and noted there have been no reports of vandalism at a car lot nearby. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M. Commissioner Maddy stated he thought a car lot is a perfectly acceptable use in the General Commercial district. He thought the residents across the street are screened enough and that the additional traffic CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 5 of 12 would not negatively affect them as much as they think it would. From his perspective selling cars basically on the internet is a much better way of doing business than selling from large surface lots. He appreciates the targeted use of space. Chair Geng concurred with Commissioner Maddy and noted he appreciates the concern the neighbors have. Vice-Chair Davis also concurred. Maddy moved, Bean seconded, recommending granting the conditional use permit for outdoor sales and display for automobiles to William Kasper, with WS Sales of Shorewood, 19245 State highway 7, subject to the seven conditions listed in the November 11, 2015, staff report. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen stated Council will consider this matter during its November 23, 2015, meeting. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING DENSITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SENIOR HOUSING Applicant: Oppidan Investment Company Location: 23075 State Highway 7, 6020 & 6050 Chaska Road Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider Zoning Code text amendments regarding density and parking requirements for elderly housing. The applicant is Oppidan Investment Company and the properties are located at 23075 State Highway 7, 6020 Chaska Road and 6050 Chaska Road. Director Nielsen explained Oppidan Investment Company, located in the City of Excelsior, has arranged to purchase the properties at 23075 State Highway 7 and at 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road and proposes to develop them as a senior housing project. As a point of reference, there is an existing building on the property which Control House Realty operates out of. The property Control House is located on is zoned R-C, Residential Commercial. Ultimately, Oppidan would propose that zoning with a planned unit development (PUD) for all three properties. He clarified this Public Hearing is not about the proposed project. The Hearing is about density and parking spaces. Oppidan asks that the density for elderly housing in the R-C District be increased from 10 units per acre to 12 units per acre; that the assisted living units be counted as half units for the purpose of calculating density; and, that the parking requirement for elderly housing be reduced from two spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit. If the parking space reduction was approved, the applicant would allow for 1.5 spaces per unit and it would have to show where an additional one-half space per unit could be located on the site should parking become a problem in the future. Those requested text amendments were taken from a proposed code amendment that was studied by the Planning Commission over the past couple of years (a copy of memorandum from Director Nielsen dated May 3, 2014, was included in the packet for additional background). The Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amendment. The City Council ultimately tabled the amendment. He thought one or two members of Council wanted to wait to find out what the changes to the Code would be for an actual project. Oppidan has submitted some illustrations showing what the development would look like if the changes to the Code were approved. He displayed those illustrations and highlighted various elements. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 6 of 12 He noted there is a discrepancy between two sections of the City Code which address building height. He explained Section 1201.19 Subd. 6. of the Zoning Code limits building height in the R-C zoning district to two and a half stories or 35 feet, whichever is least. Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 states that elderly housing shall not exceed one and a half stories, except in the R-3A, R-3B, and R-C zoning districts where three-story buildings are allowed. He suggested the discrepancy be addressed in the text amendment. He noted staff thought the one and a half story requirement is a typographical error. Regarding the three story requirement in 1201.03 Subd. 20, he stated the Planning Commission and Council must decide whether three stories should be the requirement or if it should be two and a half stories. The applicant has asked that three stories be the standard. He explained one issue that has been raised with the applicant is the fact that the City has taken a position that elderly housing should be a part of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area (at the intersection of Smithtown Road and Country Road 19). The applicant’s market study suggests that the market may not support more than the amount of elderly housing Oppidan is proposing. In that respect, the City will have to determine whether it wants to encourage elderly housing in an area other than Smithtown Crossing. Nielsen noted that Patrick Barrett, representing Oppidan, was present. Mr. Barrett noted his role within Oppidan is to manage its Construction Management Department. He works with the development team and city staffs. He offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have regarding the request. Vice-Chair Davis asked what the total number of parking stalls would have to be. Commissioner Maddy clarified that is not what the Planning Commission is considering at this time. Director Nielsen stated the illustrations show 64 above ground stalls and 44 underground stalls. Mr. Barrett clarified the underground stalls would be under the independent / assisted living area and under the area called Town Center. Council Liaison Woodruff noted the concept illustration shows 33 future staff parking stalls. Council Liaison Woodruff stated it was his recollection that about two years ago one of the occupants of an existing building had some serious issues with stormwater drainage. The City did some work over there to mitigate the problem. He asked if Oppidan has assessed the drainage in that area and the feasibility of constructing underground parking. Mr. Barrett stated Oppidan has not done any geotechnical study work yet and therefore he cannot give a quote on water table. Woodruff stated there had been flooding in their office. Mr. Barrett stated there are ways to deal with that. There are a couple of things Oppidan would have to comply with if there is a flood plain issue or a water table issue. If there were those issues the underground parking would have to be waterproofed. There would be concrete walls with waterproofing on the outside to prevent water issues. Woodruff expressed concern about the possibility that Oppidan would find out constructing underground parking would not be feasible and then there would be a parking problem. Director Nielsen clarified that would be part of the analysis of the plans Oppidan would have to submit. Nielsen noted the drainage issues that were associated with that building were surface drainage. He stated there would have to be some type of ponding for the site. Commissioner Bean stated if Council approved the requested changes to the Code he asked Mr. Barrett if Oppidan would consider building its project in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area instead. Mr. Barrett stated Oppidan attempted to do that with no success. Bean asked what prevented that from happening. Mr. Barrett explained Oppidan was not able to obtain a land acquisition agreement. Bean stated he recollects hearing that the American Legion had been open to redevelopment there. Director Nielsen stated it is but it is slow to move with regard to getting its membership to agree to plans and so forth. Nielsen then stated he is not sure a development would have to involve the Legion’s site; it might involve its vacant lot. The elderly housing component of the plan was the western portion of that. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 7 of 12 noted that land ownership is an issue. He stated the City has agreed to consider tax increment financing (TIF) to help with acquiring the needed parcels. Vice-Chair Davis stated she thought there were height issues for the Study Area. Director Nielsen stated that allows higher buildings than the subject site does. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. Sue Potter, 6025 Chaska Road, noted her property is located across the street from the proposed project and it is for sale now. Therefore, it would not affect her very much. She expressed concern about the traffic the proposed project would generate. The illustrations show an entrance and exit onto Chaska Road across from her property and her neighbor’s property. She stated that her neighbors have young children and it’s possible that the buyers of her property would also have young children. There are no shoulders or sidewalk along Chaska Road. Therefore, pedestrians and bicyclists have to be on the roadway. She expressed concern for their safety. She noted that she would prefer to have the exit and entrance on the Highway 7 side of the proposed project. She anticipates a lot of additional traffic because of the number of units proposed and people coming to visit the residents there. Commissioner Bean clarified that the illustrations are hypothetical at this time and the number of units proposed in the illustrations is 90 – 100 units. Debbie Trent, 6045 Chaska Road, noted she and her husband have two young boys; they are seven and nine years old. She stated they already have concerns about the boys’ safety on Chaska Road. Having 100 more drivers travel past the bottom of their driveway concerns them. She asked if it would be possible to slow drivers down by putting speed bumps on the roadway. She noted their children are not allowed to be on the roadway. She also expressed concern about flooding; the amount of stormwater that flows from their property down their driveway is substantial and it pools at the end of their driveway. She expressed concern about snow removal because that is already an issue. She stated she also would prefer having the entrance and exit from the proposed project be on to and off of Highway 7. Director Nielsen noted that would not be possible because the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) does not allow direct property access on to the highway. Commissioner Bean stated that after having done traffic studies on the Highway 7 MnDOT actually eliminated access points. He questioned if the proposed project could have a service road to the site on the Highway 7 side of the site from the northeast corner. Ms. Trent brought up the need for green space on the site for the older population. Commissioner Bean reiterated that the illustrations are hypothetical. Approval of various levels of plans would require public hearings to be held if it were done as a PUD. He stated maybe sidewalk could be constructed along the project site. Ms. Trent stated there is already a sidewalk nearby in Chaska and maybe a sidewalk could be constructed and connect to the sidewalk in Chanhassen for safety reasons. Vice-Chair Davis stated that this evening’s discussion is about text amendments to the Code regarding density and parking spaces. She then stated she thought the suggestions offered up were good. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 8 of 12 Commissioner Bean noted that he has no concern about the proposed changes to the Code; he thought they were good recommendations. With regard to the hypothetical proposal, he then stated he thought the Planning Commission would be remiss by not saying there may be a better site for the elderly housing if there were a way to move the redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area forward. He expressed concern that there is already an elderly housing development at the south end of Chaska [Road] and Highway 41 and it is being doubled in size. He asked if it would be somewhat self- defeating to have two elderly housing complexes in such close proximity. He stated he thought the hypothetical structure would be invasive to the residents along Chaska Road. He strongly endorsed the text amendments requested. Chair Geng noted that he agreed with Commissioner Bean in support of the text amendments. He stated that he thought the City should increase the number of units per acre to 12 for elderly housing. He reiterated that if the amendments are approved and Oppidan chooses to move forward with a development proposal there would be a series of public hearings and things such as traffic, stormwater management and screening would specifically be considered. He stated many people have a desire to attract some type of elderly housing development to the City. Vice-Chair Davis concurred and summarized what Chair Geng stated. She noted that she supports the proposed text amendments and thought they would bring the City in line with what other communities allow. Council Liaison Woodruff asked if the amendments would apply to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area. Director Nielsen responded no and noted the Study Area in part is zoned C-1 and the amendments would only apply to the R-C district. Commissioner Maddy stated he is leaning toward changing Section 1201.19 Subd. 6. to read “Height: no structure shall exceed three stories, or 35 feet, whichever is least.” to match Section 1201.03 Subd. 20.(b)(11) which states “… except in the R-3A, R-3B and R-C zoning districts in which building heights may be three stories.” He thought any residential builder could build three stories in under 35 feet and therefore the 35-foot restriction does not seem unreasonable. Director Nielsen noted there is some rationale for three stories. He explained that there needs to be elevators for anything over two stories high and typically a developer has to get to three stories to have an elevator make sense. He stated the “…limited to one and one-half stories...” in Section 1201.03 Subd. 20.(b)(11) is a typo and it should read “…limited to two and one-half stories…”. The current code for the R-C Zoning District allows two and one-half stories. Bean moved, Davis seconded, recommended approval of the text amendment to Zoning Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 20(b)(8)(c) to change “….;” to “ R-C: Ten units per acre…R-C: Twelve units ;”; to add to Section 1201.03 Subd. 20(b)(8) item (d) “ per acreFor purposes of calculating density, .”; and, in Section 1201.03 Subd. 20(b)(8) assisted living units shall be counted as one-half unit stipulate that parking for elderly housing would be “… one and one-half parking spaces per unit, .”. Motion passed 4/0. plus proof of parking demonstrating the ability to provide two spaces per unit Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a text amendment to the Zoning Code Section 1201.19 Subd. 6. to change “… Height; no structure shall exceed two and one-half stories, or .” to “… 35 feet, whichever is leastHeight; no structure shall exceed three stories, or 35 feet, whichever .” Motion passed 4/0. is least CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 9 of 12 Vice-Chair Davis asked if Council will consider this matter during its November 23, 2015, meeting. Director Nielsen stated he thought Council would be informed of this but there would not be a draft Ordinance amendment for consideration that evening. Staff would likely ask Council to direct staff to prepare the Ordinance. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 8:07 P.M. 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Charles Bennett Location: 24835 Yellowstone Trail Director Nielsen explained Charles Bennett owns the property located at 24835 Yellowstone Trail. The property was originally platted as Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1, Deerfield Addition. Many years ago the properties were legally combined. A previous owner had applied for a minor subdivision but never followed through on it so the approval expired. Mr. Bennett has requested approval of a minor subdivision, splitting the property into two lots. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contains 54,779 square feet of area. Mr. Bennett’s home is situated on the westerly half of the property. The proposed lots would be 21,464 square feet and 38,315 square feet (the lot with the home on it) in area. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the resubdivision of the lots into two building sites simply separates them back to their original configuration. Both of the proposed lots would comply with the requirements of the R-1C Zoning District. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends approval of the minor division subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. 2. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicant must pay one park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). He gets credit for the lot with the house on it. 4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Council Liaison Woodruff stated because the property was originally platted as two lots then legally combined and because a subdivision was approved once but not recorded he asked if there was any payment of park dedication fees and sanitary sewer charges for the second lot. Director Nielsen stated there is no record of that. He explained at one time the sewer charge access charge was based on a formula which factored in area and so forth and when lots were subdivided they has to pay an area charge. The City dropped that formula approach and it now charges a fixed amount per lot. Commissioner Maddy stated when someone combines two lots he asked if the City gives them a park dedication fee and sanitary sewer charge back. Director Nielsen responded no. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 10 of 12 Michael Hayes, a contractor for Mr. Bennet, noted that Mr. Bennet’s wife had their first baby over the weekend and Mr. Bennet was home trying to get some sleep. Commissioner Bean asked if Mr. Bennett intends to build another house on the new lot. Mr. Hayes stated he thought that was the intent. Maddy moved, Bean seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Charles Bennett for his property located at 24835 Yellowstone Trail subject to the four conditions listed in the November 9, 2015, staff report. Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is the consideration of the Development Stage approval for the former Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property slated for the December 1, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. He explained the plans staff has seen to date are consistent with the Concept Stage plans. The Development Stage plans are the nuts and bolts for the project. He thought it would take more than one meeting to discuss the Development Stage plans. There will likely be three different staff reports – the planning staff report, the engineering staff report, and a report from Michelle Barnes with Northwest Associated Consultants who is providing contract services related to the environment, planting of natural areas for the MCC site, trail locations, landscaping, wetland restoration and so forth. Commissioner Maddy asked when the 60-day rule clock starts. Director Nielsen stated once he has confirmed that the applicant has submitted all of the necessary paperwork. Director Nielsen explained there is a meeting with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on November 19 to go over some of the plans. He thought that the MCWD may impose some things that have not been picked up by the developer yet. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the second meeting would be in December. Director Nielsen responded not necessarily. Director Nielsen noted the public hearing on December 1 will be for the preliminary plat and that is part of the Development Stage approval. Commissioner Bean stated the Planning Commission could conceivably have a meeting on December 15 or December 22. Director Nielsen stated if there are things the developer has to do before a second meeting it may not be possible to get them to the City within four or five days of December 1. If the items were minor it may not be difficult for the developer to get them done in a short time period. Council Liaison Woodruff noted Council’s only regular meeting in December is on December 14. It would have to go before Council during its first meeting in January. Woodruff then stated the week of December 22 is a bad week to have meetings. He did not think there was a need to rush a second meeting in December for the Commission. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 11 of 12 Vice-Chair Davis asked if Ms. Barnes’ comments go back to the developer before the Commission sees them. Director Nielsen responded yes. Director Nielsen stated there is a lot line rearrangement slated on the December 1 meeting agenda as well. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s October 26, 2015, and November 9, 2015, meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). Council Liaison Woodruff stated there was a meeting with representatives from the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) earlier in the day to discuss the possibility of an overpass for the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail at County Road 19. It is his understanding that possibility is not off of the table. People continue to look for ways to fund that. Director Nielsen explained the TRPD’s bid to construct an overpass came in substantially over budget. The TRPD would not get enough federal grant money to cover a significant portion of that cost so it relinquished the grant. The TRPD decided to hold a couple of public meetings about ways to improve that crossing with at-grade crossing improvements. Council did not want to move forward with the option recommended by TRPD. TRPD did not want to move forward with anything Shorewood would not endorse. TRPD representatives met with staff and others a couple of times since then. The idea of Hennepin County partnering with the City and the school district on tax abatement for the Mattamy MCC redevelopment project was suggested to TRPD. Tax abatement is about foregoing taxes that would be generated from the redevelopment for a number of years and dedicating the tax value for improvement projects in that general area. The school district would be asked to put some of its abatement toward the construction of trails that would give children a safe walkway to school. The County’s share could be used to help fund the overpass. TRPD representatives thought the County Board may be hesitant to do that because it does not want to set a precedent with regard to abating taxes. TRPD representatives indicated they were willing to apply for another larger federal grant. He thought TRPD representatives may go before Council in the near future and talk about what it was considering and about making some short-term changes to the at-grade crossing. Council Liaison Woodruff stated tax abatement would allow an entity to bond for the improvements and then collect the value of the taxes over a period of time to pay off the bonds. • SLUC • Other Vice-Chair Davis asked how the Deer Management Program went this year. Director Nielsen stated he thought the number of deer harvested in 2015 was about the same as in 2014; about 18. There were no incidents this year. He thought the Program has helped lower the number of deer roaming the City. He then sated he hopes the snow cover will be enough in February 2016 to allow for a good aerial survey to be done. Davis stated that morning she saw a buck and three does grazing away over her property. She thought the Program has helped. Commissioner Maddy asked if Mattamy has started to do any of the site remediation work for the Mattamy project site. Director Nielsen stated it has had the greens scraped. He explained the soil CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2015 Page 12 of 12 remediation plan was subject to review and comment by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. One of the agencies has requested additional testing. Mattamy focused on the greens. One agency asked Mattamy to have the tee boxes tested and to remove any contaminated soils. Mercury is the main element the agencies are concerned about. It does not go into the ground and spread. Commissioner Bean stated that based on observation he thought the preliminary cuts to the street have been done. Director Nielsen stated that was done to get the equipment in. Nielsen stated the club house demolition was started on November 16. Council Liaison Woodruff noted the small structure near the old tennis courts was demolished a number of days ago. In response to a question from Commissioner Bean, Council Liaison Woodruff stated there is no reason a representative from the Planning Commission needs to attend the December 7 Truth-in-Taxation hearing. Woodruff noted there is a work session prior to that to interview a downsized group who would provide contract arborist / forester services to the City. Vice-Chair Davis asked who the firms or individuals are. The three applicants Council will interview are Craig Sinclair, S&S Tree and Horticultural Services, Inc., and Burks Tree and Landscape Care. Davis asked what the goal is for the consultant. Woodruff stated completing the tree inventory / tree management plan are priorities for Council. Council is not sure if the firm / individual should provide tree assessment services to residents. Director Nielsen stated if the City did offer that service there may be a fee for it. Davis asked if buckthorn removal in the parks has been discussed. Woodruff responded no. Davis commented if people want to see what a property looks like after buckthorn removal she encouraged them to drive by her property. Her husband has been doing it for 10 years. She thought removal has to be part of forest health. Director Nielsen stated buckthorn is an issue that has to be dealt with on the former MCC property. He noted that a lot of the vegetation around the perimeter of that property is buckthorn. Davis thought the buckthorn should be removed. Woodruff stated from his perspective doing the work would not be part of the consultant’s job. Their job would be to organize, plan, supervise and so forth. Removal of buckthorn would be a separate contract. 8. ADJOURNMENT Maddy moved, Bean seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 17, 2015, at 8:46 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder