Loading...
PC-12-01-15 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2015 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Vice-Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Bean asked that Item 2 and Item 3 be discussed before Item 1. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for December 1, 2015, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  November 17, 2015 Maddy moved, Bean seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Discussion moved to Item 2 on the agenda. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – REVISED CONCEPT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS – MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road This was discussed after Item 3 on the agenda. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 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 stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a revised concept plan and Development Stage plans for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Mattamy Homes, 24575 Smithtown Road. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 2 of 19 She noted that due to the size and complexity of this project and the issues that still need to be resolved staff has recommended that this Hearing be continued to the Commission’s January 5, 2016, meeting. She anticipates the Commission will make a recommendation that evening. She asked that those in the audience wishing to speak keep their comments as short as possible and to not repeat points that have already been made. Vice-Chair Davis stated she assumes the Planning Commission will comment on this during its January 5 meeting. Director Nielsen clarified he thought the Commission should comment on things that they thought may have been missed after the Public Testimony portion of this Hearing is closed. Director Nielsen explained that in October 2015 the City adopted a resolution (No. 15-073) approving a concept plan for Mattamy Homes to redevelop the MCC property as a residential PUD consisting of up to 140 single-family homes. The project consisted of traditional single-family residential and age-targeted single-family residential. The developer has since submitted an application for the second stage of the review process – the Development Stage. Since then the developer was approached by the owner (Venero) of an adjoining property on the west side of the Mattamy site to purchase the back portion of that property along Seamans Drive for inclusion into the Mattamy project. That coupled with the loss of one age-targeted unit due to tree preservation has brought the total number of units for the project to 142, 39 age-targeted units and 103 traditional homes. The current application includes a request for a revision to the original concept plan. The City Attorney has stated that because the change to the concept plan does not have a significant impact on the overall development the PUD process does not have to be restarted from the beginning. Director Nielsen stated the Commission has been provided with three staff reports regarding issues associated with the Development Stage plans. They are: a planning report from him regarding the Development Stage plans, a memorandum from Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) that addresses natural resource and trail issues, and a letter from the City Engineer that addresses engineering (transportation and utilities) issues. The memo from NAC and the Engineer’s report are quite technical in nature so he will not go through them in detail. The planning report is more about policy. He explained that for the Commission’s January 5 meeting he hopes that the issues raised in the reports would be resolved and that a punch list would have been created of items that would be included on revised plans for the Final Plan Stage and items that would be included in the development agreement. t With regard to natural resources, Nielsen explained he memorandum from NAC addresses natural resource issues such as wetland protection, tree preservation and landscaping, and treatment of the open space portions of the site. Following are the issues he thought were worth highlighting. 1. Public Open Space – The developer has chosen to include two small areas along the west side of the proposed trail that would have a maintained turf. He displayed and highlighted aspects of that Plan. In the Concept Stage of the process, it was recommended that the public open space areas would be natural and low-maintenance. The City chose not to acquire park land because there is Badger Park to the east of the site and Freeman Park to the west of it. Those two areas would be for the benefit of residents living on the redeveloped site. If the City is agreeable to this design, the development agreement for the PUD should include provisions for the homeowners association (HOA) and declaration of covenants for the HOA to be responsible for maintenance/mowing of those areas. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 3 of 19 2. Tree Preservation and Landscaping –The developer’s plan for tree replacement includes planting of “street trees” along all streets in the development. These are trees that would be planted in the boulevard areas of the public right-of-way (ROW). They would be located just in from the curb and between the street and the sidewalk where there is sidewalk. Although staff is in agreement that the overall effect of the design can be quite desirable, they are concerned about adding the potential liability of new trees in the public ROW. The developer has agreed to include provisions in the development agreement stating that the HOA would be responsible for maintenance of street trees. The NAC has recommended that there be a variety of tree types planted. From the beginning, the intent has been to maintain as much vegetation as possible around the perimeter of the entire site. Buckthorn, an invasive species, currently helps screen the site and the City usually asks a developer to remove it from a site. There has been discussion about possibly removing the buckthorn after the new landscaping has been established. There are a couple of homes across from the end of the cul-de-sac close to the street where the developer would provide landscaping. 3. Renewable Energy Resource Opportunities – One issue not addressed in the NAC report (but flagged early on in the review process) is the identification of renewable energy resource opportunities. The City has contracted with energy consultant Great Plains Institute to do a “Shorewood Renewable Energy Analysis” which sets forth recommendations relative to alternative energy possibilities in Shorewood. Solar power appears to warrant some consideration. The Great Plains report makes several recommendations as to how Shorewood’s development regulations might be amended to address solar energy. Following are those most pertinent to the MCC project. A. Solar gardens – The Great Plains report states: “There may be opportunity for a moderately sized solar garden within the golf course, but until the site is finalized and the city retains ownership of the wetland area, it cannot be determined how much solar is available at this time. Other considerations will include complications associated with building on or near a wetland and the proximity of utility infrastructure with adequate capacity to interconnect with such a solar development.” While this recommendation may have merit, it requires further study. The City will have to determine whether such a use fits in the natural open space areas to be acquired. Questions about who builds, who owns, and who maintains the installation must be answered. In previous discussions of solar gardens, the issue of security was also raised. These questions need not be answered at this time. What is known is that the land would be public and available should the City decide to pursue that as an option. B. Zoning Issues – Great Plains has recommended the following possible zoning provisions that could be incorporated into the development agreement for the PUD 1. Early on the developer agreed to not include provisions in the declaration of protective covenants for the project that would preclude either roof-mounted or ground-mounted solar installations within the development. 2. Add solar equipment as allowable accessory uses in the development. 3. Allow solar equipment to extend 3-4 feet above the peak of the roofs, either by right, or through a conditional use process. This one deserves close scrutiny from the standpoint of need and aesthetics. Prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, staff will attempt to find actual photos of such installations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 4 of 19 4. Allow solar equipment to encroach into required setbacks. The Code does allow certain encroachments (e.g., roof eaves, chimney chases and so forth) two feet into required setbacks. This same exception could be considered for solar equipment. The setback requirement for swimming pools in rear yards is 60 percent of the required rear yard setback. This could also apply to solar installations. 5. Accessory structures are currently limited to 15 feet in height. The Great Plains report suggests going to 20 feet for ground-mounted solar equipment. Accessory buildings may actually exceed 15 feet (the measurement is taken from grade to the mid-point between the eave and the peak). Therefore, 20 feet for solar equipment may be appropriate. 6. The report suggests possibly having hardcover exemptions for solar equipment. 7. The report suggests the use of “solar easements” that would preclude one homeowner from preventing solar access on his neighbor’s property. This becomes a matter of balancing conflicting interests. Just as the creation of ponding areas or wetland mitigation conflicts with tree cover, solar access can affect the ability to plant or even preserve trees. There needs to be further philosophical and legal discussion about this. In the past the City has used a PUD process as a spring board for eventual amendments to zoning regulations that become applicable to all properties in Shorewood. With regard to land use, Nielsen had the following to say. 1. Concept Plan Revision – Nielsen reiterated that the owner (Venero) of an adjoining property had approached the developer about buying the rear portion of his property along Seamans Drive and incorporating the land into the MCC development. This necessitates a revision to the approved Concept Plan that results in a net increase of two lots. The City Attorney has advised that “….this parcel addition is not a material modification to the concept plan approved. The development stage plan application is in substantial conformity to the plan approved.” At this time not enough is known about how this proposal would leave the remainder of the Venero property. Assuming the result is consistent with the R-1A zoning of that property, it is recommended that the proposed conveyance be processed as a minor subdivision. Depending on the availability of survey information, this could be scheduled as early as the January 5 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Residential Mix – The entire MCC project is planned for single-family residential use on lots ranging in size from 7200 square feet in area, to 43,776 square feet. Assuming the City agrees with the Venero subdivision, the developer proposes to construct 39 age-targeted units, down one from the Concept Plan, and 103 traditional homes, for a total of 142 homes. The remainder of the site, aside from street right-of-way, consists of public and private open spaces. The preliminary plat for the project includes several outlots. The uses of outlots would be as follows.  Outlot A – mostly wetland; owned and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA)  Outlots B and C – west entry monuments and wetland areas; owned and maintained by the HOA  Outlot D – orphaned open space; owned and maintained by the HOA  Outlot E – east entry monument; owned and maintained by the HOA CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 5 of 19  Outlot F – public open space, including trail; owned and maintained by the City, except for one of the east entry monuments and ponds* which would be maintained by the HOA  Outlot G – preserved woodlot; owned and maintained by the City  Outlot H – public open space, storm water ponds, wetland mitigation area and trail; owned and maintained by the City, except for the ponds* which would be maintained by the HOA  Outlot I – orphaned open space; owned and maintained by the HOA *The City Engineer will prepare a plan for the short- and long-term maintenance of the storm water pond areas. 3. Zoning Standards. A. Building Setbacks – The Concept Plan recommended using R-1C zoning district standards as the basis for the traditional home lots. The Preliminary Site & Utility Plans (sheets 8 and 9 of the plan set) show 30-foot front yard setbacks instead of 35 feet for several areas. That would be mitigated by the extraordinary ROW widths that are proposed to accommodate street trees and sidewalks. A 30-foot setback with a 60-foot right-of-way versus a 35-foot setback on a 50-foot right-of-way has the same net effect with respect to visual, open space impact. Something similar was done for the Waterford Subdivision PUD and that development contains a map showing where the setbacks did not comply with R-1C zoning district setbacks. Similarly, the 20-foot front setback for the westerly age-targeted units on the east side of street on a 60-foot right-of-way has the same visual effect as a 25-foot setback on a 50-foot right-of way. There was considerable discussion in the concept plan review about the side- yard setbacks proposed for the age-targeted units, particularly for the westerly units. The developer has indicated that he will illustrate how the proximity of the homes can be mitigated with landscaping and by virtue of the curving streets. Some thought should be given to staggering setbacks on the westerly entry street to avoid a “row house” appearance. The Site Plans show that Lot 17 only has a 30 foot setback; the other lots along the side of the large cul-de-sac have 40 foot setbacks. It appears that may have been done to save trees on the back of Lot 17, If that is the case, there needs to be a provision in the declaration of covenants about the protection of those trees. The varying setbacks should be addressed in the development agreement (which becomes the zoning for the site), both by list and by illustration. B. Impervious Surface Restriction – Ordinarily, the required “hardcover” maximum for non- shoreland lots is 33 percent. Because the lots are being clustered resulting in an extraordinary amount of public open space being set aside, it would be reasonable to allow some additional hardcover per lot. A standard of 40 percent maximum hardcover has been suggested. C. The development agreement should include provisions describing how the private open space areas may be used. For example, will any type of structures be allowed in those areas? It should also prescribe how the areas are to be maintained in a natural open space design, consistent with the NAC’s recommendations. These should be incorporated into conservation easements dedicated to the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 6 of 19 With regard to transportation, Nielsen stated that several issues had been raised relative to transportation in the Concept Stage review. A great deal of concern was expressed about the impact of the development on area streets. He explained how some of the issues have been or are being addressed. 1. The City Council established an ad hoc traffic committee which has begun work on a study of the Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive collector route between County Road 19 and Highway 7. Traffic is already a problem along that route. The committee’s recommendations will be provided in a separate report to the City Council. 2. In addition to some of the additional ROW widths within the project, the developer has provided additional ROW to bring the portions of Smithtown Road and Country Club Road abutting the site to a full 66-foot width. That provides room for the City to make changes to those roadways. 3. The preliminary plat includes a second, westerly access to Smithtown Road. Because that would necessitates some alteration of the wetland located in the northwest corner of the site, the developer and City will work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on a plan for wetland mitigation. 4. The easterly entrance to the project has been shifted over about 50 feet to address the issue of headlights aimed at properties on the north side of Smithtown Road. The entrance / exit now aligns with a property line on the north side so that headlights pointing north would not be pointed at the home. If that continues to be an issue the developer has offered to plant some additional landscaping on that side of the roadway. 5. Specific design standards for the streets in the plat have been addressed in the City Engineer’s report. The issue of one cul-de-sac being longer than 700 feet still needs to be addressed. 6. The NAC report makes recommendations relative to the proposed trail and sidewalk system included in the development. The City Engineer’s report addresses design and construction standards for these facilities. The proposed trail that would parallel Country Club Road ends at the intersection of Mary Lake Trail. That is because of the location of a wetland just south of that and the lack of public ROW south of that. One of the suggestions made in the concept plan review is that Country Club Road could be made more curvilinear as a traffic calming measure. If that concept is implemented in the future, consideration should be given to shifting the street slightly to the east to provide a more level area for the trail to be extended down to Yellowstone Trail. The plans do not indicate where potential trail crossings should be located on Country Club Road. That is for the City to determine. Aside from the Mary Lake Trail location, a crossing at the Echo Road intersection appears to be logical, assuming safe geometrics in that location. In the future, the City may want to consider extending a small segment of sidewalk between Echo Road and Badger Park. With regard to community facilities, Nielsen stated public utilities have been addressed in the City Engineer’s report. Sewer and water are both available to the site. The Engineer mentioned in his report the potential need for an oversized watermain throughout the development. The City’s water plan includes eventually installing an oversized watermain under Country Club Road. The watermain through CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 7 of 19 the site would take the place of that. The City’s policy has been to pay for the oversizing of the watermain. There is a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor sewer in the southeast quadrant of the site that has to be relocated. One issue that is still somewhat unresolved is stormwater drainage. The MCWD was contacted early on in the development review process and again more recently when staff got into more details of the preliminary plat. The MCWD has provided a letter of interest which includes the sizing of the stormwater ponds. There has been some confusion about whether the project should be calculated on the basis of a new development or a redevelopment. The MCWD considers it redevelopment and that may necessitate the ponds being enlarged somewhat. Hopefully, that will be resolved prior to the January 5 meeting. The developer’s engineer and MCWD representatives continue to work on resolving the drainage plans for the project. Early on the developer determined that there is a stormwater outlet on the site that is an emergency overflow. The MCWD had it as a land-locked basin. There is an old 24-inch diameter pipe that carries water out of the south side of the property and extends down through some properties south of Yellowstone Trail. It ends up in a pipe that goes under State Highway 7 and ultimately drains into Lake Minnewashta. The developer has done some exploration work on that. Part of the pipe is badly deteriorated. Early on the MCWD indicated that it would allow that pipe to be restored to its current size; it cannot be enlarged. That has to be resolved with the MCWD as do some ownership issues south of Yellowstone Trail. He highlighted some items in the NAC consultant’s very detailed, technical report. She recommends doubling up on the sidewalk in a couple of locations. The consultant stated that because of the age- targeted units along the westerly access to the development she suggests there be sidewalks on both sides of the street. Staff agrees with that. The City and MCWD require buffers around the wetlands. The wetland monuments the City requires are somewhat flush mounted. They do not show up very well and they often get buried. For this development, the City would like grass height monument signs indicating they are wetland buffer areas. The consultant has some ideas for the design. The consultant recommends planting a variety of trees and she asked for a tree schedule that would show percentages for the various tree types to be planted. The deciduous tree replacement requires three-inch caliper trees. The consultant recommends moving the monuments and plantings at the entrances in order to provide protected sight triangles. She also mentioned the need for a vegetation management plan. Nielsen reiterated it may be best to remove the buckthorn after the vegetation on the site has been established. He explained that the project is proposed to be developed in three phases as illustrated in the Phasing Plan. Park dedication fees, local sanitary sewer access charges and water connection charges are paid at each stage of platting. Staff recommends that the trail and landscaping work on the open space areas be started during the first phase. It is not unusual for turf to take 3 – 5 years to become established. Nielsen reiterated that staff recommends that this Public Hearing on the Development Stage plans be continued to the Planning Commission’s January 5, 2016, meeting. That should allow enough time to address the various issues raised by staff and to obtain approvals from the MCWD. Nielsen noted that Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, was present. Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, noted it has taken a long time to get to this point in the process. He stated he had little to add to Director Nielsen’s lengthy, detailed presentation. He then stated there are some things that still have to be worked out in order to accomplish the City’s objectives. He noted he intends to keep his remarks as brief as possible. He explained Venero Gardens intends to close the nursery CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 8 of 19 after next year. Incorporating the approximate rear 100 feet of the nursery site into the MCC development makes sense. It would add two more lots served by sewer and water to Mattamy’s subdivision. The lots would be about the same size as some of the other lots in the subdivision. It would give the Veneros added value. The City would lose a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. He explained Mattamy is working with owners of adjacent properties to give some of them the Outlots. It does not make any sense to make the Outlots part of the MCC HOA. It does make a lot of sense to have then combined with those residential properties to enlarge the rear yards. It has been part of Mattamy’s concept from day one to provide buffer strips and buffers around the perimeter of the project site. He pointed out on a graphic which Outlots would be incorporated into which residential properties, which would be owned and maintained by the HOA and which would be owned and maintained by the City as public open space. Mr. Packer noted that Mattamy had proposed nearly all of the sidewalks that have been suggested for the development. He explained Mattamy thinks that street trees make a nice neighborhood; they separate a City from a suburb. Where he lives a street tree was planted for each lot 20 years ago and now they make that neighborhood look very nice. He stated the City has expressed concern about planting the trees in the ROW because then the City would be responsible for them. Therefore, the HOA will assume responsibility for them. The ROWs have been made a little bigger to give the trees a better chance of surviving and to provide more space between the sidewalks and curbs. He thought Mattamy went with 35 foot setbacks. Director Nielsen explained the R-1C zoning district standards were to be the basis for the traditional house lots. The front yard setback standard is 35 feet and the rear yard setback is 40 feet. Many of the traditional lots show 35 foot front yard setbacks. The lots along the large cul-de-sac are an exception to that. Some lots have 40 foot setbacks, some have 35 foot setbacks and some have 30 foot setbacks. Mr. Packer stated he would check into that and noted that originally the intent was to have 40 foot front yard setbacks. When the ROW was increased he thought the setback was decreased to 35 feet. He commented that they would all visually look the same. Mr. Packer stated that some of the suggestions made to add additional sidewalks do not make sense to Mattamy. Mattamy had proposed to have sidewalks on one side of all of the streets in the development. Sidewalks on one side in a development are usually enough to keep people off of the streets. Normally there are sidewalks on each side of the street when the ADT (average daily traffic) is 1,000 or more. There won’t be more than 100 – 200 ADT on the streets in the development. Mattamy is also being asked to put in sidewalks on both sides of Club Valley Road onto a street where there are no sidewalks. For the age-targeted units for people 55 years of age or older they should be able to cross the street to get onto a sidewalk. He thought that one internal trail could be extended up to Smithtown Road to give people more direct access to the new trail. He noted that the City is going to construct a sidewalk on just one side of Smithtown Road east in 2016 and that roadway has ADT of 5,000 – 6,000. He then stated Mattamy has worked with two of the three property owners on the southwest corner about bringing the storm sewer line through there. The two spoken to are amenable to doing something there. It would not be an invasive process (the process is called bursting). Bursting essentially involves pushing a pipe along the existing pipe alignment and open cutting a couple of spots for manholes so the City can service the storm sewer line. He expressed confidence that Mattamy would be able to get the alignment through that area with the help of the property owners. Mattamy would work with the MCWD to ensure there is capacity down the line noting he assumed there would be. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 9 of 19 Mr. Packer stated that as Mattamy has gone through this process it is trying to bring forward some of the history the former Minnetonka Country Club golf course and country club represented. It had been in the City for 100 years. There was little from the buildings that could have been saved. It has photographs of how the old entrance monument was done. Mattamy plans to use the same types of rocks used in that monument for its entrance monuments. The streets in the development have been named after old style golf clubs. The center of Prestwick Court is a large green area. Mattamy would like to transplant all of the trees (the nursery stock) that were planted as a memorial or for a special event throughout the old golf course in the middle of that cul-de-sac. Mattamy has been working with the Witraks about naming that area after Bohdan Witrak. He noted that because of the soil remediation work Mattamy has been having done on the site Shorewood is a little cleaner than it was a month ago. Mr. Packer offered to entertain questions from the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Bean stated that if the Venero subdivision does not get approved for some reason he assumes that would not change Mattamy’s approach. Mr. Packer responded it would not. Bean then stated that Director Nielsen had suggested that Ayrshire Lane be made longer in order to shorten the length of the cul-de-sac that is too long. He assumes that would necessitate Lots 1 and 2 along Ayrshire Lane being pushed to the west a little into Outlot I. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy has been working with that property owner to maintain all of those trees and possibly dedicate conservation easements to ensure the trees remain there. Mr. Packer stated he thought exceeding the length of the maximum 700 feet for a cul-de-sac by 50 feet was worth it to maintain trees. Commissioner Bean stated if there would be other owners of properties along Seamans Drive north of the Veneros property that would want to subdivide their property and sell part of their lot to Mattamy he asked if Mattamy would want to build additional houses along Bentgrass Way and thereby eliminate Outlot I. Mr. Packer stated yes on paper and explained that the problem would be that the houses on those lots north of the Veneros are located on the back of the properties. He noted that those lots are one acre in size. Mr. Packer explained that one of the concerns that had previously been expressed by the Council was age- targeted units on the west. He explained that on the grading plan it looks like boxes on the lots and all of them go out to the minimum setback. He showed the Commission an illustration of what he termed “wiggled the street east and west” which results that every time a house is on the outside of the curve the setback is greater and when the house is on the inside of the curve there is a smaller setback on the back of the house. He stated the illustration was for real models and the houses reflect actual setbacks. Very few of the age-target units have the actual 7.5 foot setback. Most setbacks are 10 feet and some are 15 feet. They would be an interesting streetscape. The traditional lots are 90 feet wide and the products range from 50 – 70 feet wide. Some of those lots would have 20-foot side yard setbacks on each side because the houses do not fill up the entire building pad. In response to a comment from Vice-Chair Davis, Mr. Packer stated the illustration for the age-targeted units is not accurate based on market feedback about the driveway usability. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Packer if he has a rendering for the Capri Circle model and noted he was curious about the circular driveway. Mr. Packer explained the Capri model is the one with the driveway parallel to the street and another one at an angle. It looks like it is circular because there are two garage doors with one driveway going one way and the second another way; that creates the illusion of circular. Johnson asked if they were single garage doors. Mr. Packer responded yes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 10 of 19 Commissioner Bean asked if Mr. Parker had any comments about the tree plan. Mr. Parker responded no and explained that for a subdivision Mattamy plants a 2.5 – 3 inch caliper trees. Bean stated the NAC consultant was quite specific about tree species. Mr. Parker stated her recommendations about planting a variety of tree types and sizes make sense. Bean stated that all of the Outlots Director Nielsen stated that would be owned by the HOA will go away. Mr. Parker clarified many of them would and explained that the Outlots would be deeded to those properties with restrictions on them (a little stricter than the City’s ordinances). Vice-Chair Davis asked what would happen if property owners did not want the Outlots. Mr. Packer stated he has not encountered property owners who do not want free land. Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Parker if Mattamy considered pedestrian / bike trails through Outlot A because they could give access to Seamans Drive. Mr. Packer stated it is wetland on the west side of Outlot A so there is no place for a trail to go. Chair Geng stated it appears that the east access to Smithtown Road has been shifted to mitigate the issue of headlights shining into homes across Smithtown Road. He thanked Mattamy for doing that. He questioned if there is a need to do that for the access road on the west. Mr. Packer stated across from that access point there is a pond and a side yard. The headlights would not shine into someone home. Geng asked if the proposed trail that would be parallel to Country Club Road would be in the ROW or to the west of the ROW. Mr. Packer explained that in some spots it would be to the west of the ROW and the City would get something like an easement for that. In other spots it would be partially in the ROW. Geng stated he wants to ensure that the City has the maximum amount of ROW to make modifications to the roadway if need be. Commissioner Johnson stated that for the trail in Outlot G it seems that there is a good connection between Niblick Alcove and Brassie Circle to continue that trail through the wetland to where the trail along County Club Road dead ends across from Mary Lake Trail. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy would discuss that and noted that is where MCES’ sewer interceptor goes. Council Liaison Woodruff noted there was a discrepancy in the letter designation for the Outlots between some of the graphic sheets. Vice-Chair Davis stated that the grading plan indicates that seven of the age-targeted lots have basement elevations below the normal water level. Mr. Packer stated that is in accordance with the City’s regulations and the MCWD’s regulations and noted that the normal water elevation in that wetland is not indicative of where ground water is. He also noted that all of the borings Mattamy had done adjacent to the wetlands came out dry. Davis noted that she would never leave buckthorn in for any reason at all. Director Nielsen explained moving that would open things up and noted it is the buckthorn that is providing the screening at this time. Davis stated it would be better to get rid of the buckthorn up front. Nielsen stated the intent is to get rid of the buckthorn after the landscaping has been established. Commissioner Maddy noted that any buckthorn left alive allow birds to eat the berries and transport the seeds to somewhere else to grow. He would support taking the buckthorn out right away. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy can consider that but suggested that people go and look at how open and exposed the site would become if that is done early on. Davis stated her husband has spent 10 years trying to eradicate buckthorn from their property and now CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 11 of 19 they have a beautiful park like setting. The other trees that have since emerged have made up for what was left open after the buckthorn was removed. Chair Geng stated when people talk about establishing landscaping he asked if that is internal to the property or along the perimeter. Director Nielsen explained the perimeter would be left relatively natural aside from the buckthorn being removed. The landscape management plan is for the public open space areas. Geng stated he also detests buckthorn but he does think it provides screening particularly during construction. He encouraged residents to comment on whether the buckthorn should be removed early in the project or in a couple of years. Commissioner Johnson thanked Mr. Packer for providing the diagram for Ayrshire Lane. He asked if there would be an opportunity to provide a little more breakup of houses. He offered up the idea of providing two or three empty outlots to break the housing up. For the southeast corner of Bentgrass Way Lot 1 – 5 he asked if there is an opportunity to introduce age-targeted units there consistent with what is across the street in exchange for two to three open spaces on Ayrshire Lane. Mr. Packer stated that he was going to respectfully resist the suggestion at this time and noted that Mattamy has demonstrated that it would meet the minimum setbacks in almost all cases. He appreciates that some people wants more open space but the people who are going to live there want to live in a compact neighborhood. Based on their marketing people want backyards and they are not concerned about side yards. Johnson stated there are areas in Shorewood that do not have the larger setbacks that have had issues with marketability. Commissioner Maddy stated the plat shows very wide roadways in the development. He thought there is an opportunity to construct narrower roads and provide better infiltration areas for trees to survive, more room for the sidewalk on one side and possibly some traffic calming. Director Nielsen stated the paved surface would be 24 feet wide plus curb and gutter and that almost one-half of the ROW would be boulevard. Maddy noted he was pleased to hear that. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 8:39 P.M. Chris Gehrke, 24650 Smithtown Road, thanked the Planning Commission for providing him an opportunity to speak and noted that he has lived in the City for three years. He stated he was present to speak on behalf of himself and his family. He commended Mr. Packer for listening to some of his concerns and shifting the easterly access point to Smithtown Road to the west so that vehicle headlights do not shine into his home. He expressed concern that the monument lighting could still shine into his home. He asked if the trees on the front of his property would be cut down thereby making the visibility of the monument lights worse at his home. Director Nielsen clarified that the additional ROW would be on the south side of Smithtown Road and that Mr. Gehrke’s trees would not be impacted. Mr. Gehrke stated the City owns the lot to the east of his property and he would prefer the access point be located across from the City-owned lot or the American Legion property. He then stated that he would not mind the buckthorn being left alone during construction because it provides a visual barrier. He suggested planting white cedar arborvitae around the perimeter because it provides the best screening all year round. David Cooley, 24725 Smithtown Road, stated that most of his concerns have been addressed. He thought the ad hoc traffic committee would deal with his other concerns. He then stated he has spoken with Mr. Packer about drainage issues and noted there is a lot south of his lot that has some wet areas. The back of Lot 5 on the north side of Bentgrass Way is going to be wet because there is a wet spot there. There used to be drain tiles that carried water for lots north of Lot 5 to the south on to the former golf course property. There are a number of lots that are very wet. Vice-Chair Davis stated the drainage plan indicates there is a low point and a drainage structure back there. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 12 of 19 George Greenfield, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, stated his questions would be better directed to the City Council but it is his understanding based on what Director Nielsen has told him that this would be the last Public Hearing on this PUD. Therefore, he wants his questions to be on record. His first question was regarding the age-targeted units. He explained that he had attended the open house at the Southshore Center, two Public Hearings by held by the Planning Commission and two Public Hearings held by Council. The age-targeted housing was originally proposed to sell for about $450,000. During the September 28 Council Public Hearing that price was increased to $500,000 – $550,000. He was surprised that no Councilmember, particularly Councilmember Siakel, commented on that increase in price being age-targeted housing was purported to be of benefit to the community. He viewed that increase to be an example of bad faith. Councilmember Siakel, and others, had wanted there to be a variety of housing prices in the development. Unfortunately, the variety of housing prices will be prohibitively expensive; that is not a variety. Mr. Greenfield’s second question had to do with the traffic issue and he wanted it to be addressed to Councilmember Labadie. During the September 28 meeting Labadie made the statement that children from 36 school districts attend schools within the Minnetonka School District. She made the assertion that one of the open enrolled students was from Bemidji. Bemidji is about a 4.5 hour one-way drive away. He does not find it very likely that a student from Bemidji is attending a school in the District. He stated a lot of people are excited about traffic issues. But, the City has never addressed the traffic issues created by the School District through open enrollment. He explained the Minnetonka School District claims to have about 1,000 open-enrolled students. If 250 of them pass through Shorewood on the way to various schools in the District, it amounts to 1,000 vehicle trips per school day. That dwarfs the traffic that would be generated from the proposed MCC development. The City does not get any compensation from the School District for the wear and tear on the City’s infrastructure. The City does not get any type of compensation for the pollution generated from those vehicles which are allowed to queue up at the schools because “Billy and Barbie” cannot walk 50 feet to school. They can wait in the queue for 20 minutes with engines running. The residents who live along Smithtown Road, Strawberry Lane and in that entire neighborhood are subjected to traffic greatly in excess of what the proposed development is going to create. Yet, the City never calls the School District on it. He suggested the City confront the School District about the traffic issues it creates as long as the City is trying to address the traffic issues the new development is going to exacerbate. Mr. Greenfield thanked the Commission for its time. Ed Hasek, 24315 Yellowstone Trail, commented that he has officially renamed Yellowstone Trail as the “cut-thru”. He stated that because changes have been proposed to the concept plan for the MCC development that Council approved he asked if that opens up the concept plan entirely or is it just limited to a few issues. Director Nielsen reiterated that the City Attorney has advised that the proposed changes do not materially affect the concept plan. Mr. Hasek asked what the length of the cul-de-sac is on the northeast corner of the site. Nielsen stated that he does not know the exact length offhand but he thought it was about 500 feet long. Mr. Hasek stated he had been in the business for 35 years and understands how a cul-de-sac should be measured. He pointed on a graphic that was displayed how he thought it should be measured and stated he calculated the northeast cul-de-sac to be 850 feet long on the original graphic. Nielsen stated staff checked the length and found it to be less than 700 feet long. Mr. Hasek asked staff to re-check the length. Nielsen noted that cul-de-sac had been moved slightly in order to preserve trees. Chair Geng clarified for the record that Mr. Hasek was suggesting the length of the Featherie Bay cul-de- sac be calculated from the intersection of Bentgrass Way and Wooden Cleek Drive to the end of the cul- de-sac. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 13 of 19 Mr. Hasek stated that during a traffic committee meeting he had suggested extending some of the cul-de- sacs on the east side of the site out to Country Club Road for public safety, health and welfare reasons. If one of the cul-de-sacs on the northeast corner of the site were extended to be across from Echo Road it would eliminate what he perceives as an access problem on the north side of the site and it would shorten the length of the Featherie Bay cul-de-sac. It would also provide a place for a crosswalk from the proposed sidewalk along Country Club Road. Mr. Hasek expressed concern about all of the traffic that will exit the development site at the exit on to Yellowstone Trail on the south because that would be the easiest way to get to, for example, the Shorewood Village Shopping Center. He stated the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan talks about connected neighborhoods. Therefore, he thought consideration should be given to having an exit on to Country Club Road to lessen the traffic burden on Yellowstone Trail. He noted his suggestion may be a moot point because the revised concept is only about the addition of two lots to the development and an increase of two housing units. He commented that the traffic committee was instructed not to discuss his suggestion and that is why he brought it up now. Mr. Hasek questioned the need for a 66-foot-wide ROW anywhere in the City except where there is an arterial roadway. He stated the Metropolitan (Met) Council’s transportation plan for 2040 suggests that for a collector ROW a minimum of 60 feet is needed and 100 feet is the maximum. The 66-foot-wide ROW is two rods (33 feet total) either side of the center line which is an extremely old way of doing business. Rods are not talked about any more. People talk about feet. He thought that most of what the City wants to do can be accomplished with a 60-foot-wide ROW. Maybe the extra 3 feet along Yellowstone Trail, Smithtown Road and along other streets in the City could be given back to property owners because it is not being used. Mr. Hasek stated from his perspective people must keep in mind Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive when considering traffic calming options for Country Club Road. He explained that during a recent traffic committee meeting there was discussion about having a roadway (Country Club Road) with two 12-foot driving lanes with a six-foot-wide bicycle lane in either direction. If that were done the speed limit could legally be reduced to 20 miles per hour (mph). There is a lot that would have to be done to the current 23-foot-wide driving surface plus 6 feet of tar before the grass to implement that idea. Many of the trees would have to be removed for example. Mr. Hasek asked for a copy of the current plans. Director Nielsen stated he would ensure that happened and encouraged Mr. Hasek to come to City Hall to look at the full sized plans. Mr. Hasek stated for the existing ROW down by Yellowstone Trail he thought that there is probably one rod on one side of the section or quarter-section line. He asked if the Outlot on the west side of that corner lot is going to be given to the owner of that property. If so, maybe that property owner would give the City some of his land to accommodate extending the proposed trail along Country Club Road all of the way down to Yellowstone Trail. He then stated as a landscape architect he agrees there should be a bicycle / pedestrian trail along Yellowstone Trail so people do not have to be walking or biking on the roadway. He thought the residents living along Yellowstone Trail would want a trail but they do not want a wider roadway. Mr. Hasek thanked the Planning Commission for its time. Joe Stano, 25235 Smithtown Road, stated that he owns the property adjacent to Outlots A and B. He noted that he is particularly interested in learning what the ownership plan is for Outlot A. He asked what CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 14 of 19 type of barrier would be maintained on the four new lots that abut his property. Mr. Packer stated the new lots would go all the way back to those properties but the clearing would not. Mr. Stano noted there was grass and woods on one particular area. Vice-Chair Davis asked if that is where the compromised soils are. Mr. Stano stated he is not sure how much of the wooded area is buckthorn. Vice-Chair Davis stated her recommendation was not to remove the buckthorn where Mr. Stano was talking about; it was to remove it along Country Club Road. Davis noted that if the trees still have green leaves on them they are buckthorn. Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail, routed a copy of his prepared comments to the members of the Planning Commission and staff. “My name is Henry Miles. My wife and I have lived in Shorewood for 17 years and finished raising our two kids here. Shorewood and the Minnetonka Public Schools have been very good to my family and I urge everyone to continue supporting both. I have just seven short comments to make tonight in connection with this first hearing on Mattamy’s development plans. First, I have no issues whatsoever with Mattamy’s revisions to the Concept Plan. They are minor, immaterial, and just fine; let’s move on. Secondly, solar is not justified on a project of this scale given our climate, the abundance of inexpensive natural gas, the up-front and on-going costs of solar, the unsightliness of solar collectors, and new research going on with respect to solar energy notably in the area of clear glass solar. To want solar collectors in the Mojave Desert is one thing, but not here, not now. Thirdly, as to that 600-foot missing section of sidewalk west of Country Club, south of Mary Lake Trail. The City should retain the right to build that out itself – on Mattamy’s property – when and if the wetland and other issues can be resolved. Shorewood should require an easement from Mattamy on that land. The fact that Mattamy does not propose it now should not mean that Shorewood is foreclosed from pursuing it later. In addition, Mattamy’s sidewalks/trails should not be on the City’s right-of-way. Fourth, there should be no new trees added now to the perimeter right-of-ways in case Shorewood finds a use for that property. Fifth, I’ve grown tired of all the instant-shade stuff we see in every development. I like sugar maples and hackberry and I’m delighted to see them in Mattamy’s plan. As to hackberry, two weeks ago I took down possibly the largest hackberry in Shorewood estimated at 100 years old and about as many feet high. It pained me to see the stress fractures running up that tree from last summer’s storms. I would love to see more hackberry trees. I would also like to see Mattamy plant more long-living trees like red oak, white pine, hemlock, wild cherry, and a small grove of hornbeam in honor of Paul Hornby. Now as to buckthorn. Believe it or not, it has its place in this world. If you have lived and biked in England as I have, you’d know that buckthorn is a primary plant of hedgerows. But here in Minnesota, no one except rabbits likes it because it’s invasive. That said, it has already invaded the perimeter of the project so I am in favor of leaving it for a year or two because of the visual and sound screening benefit it will provide during development. And finally, I’d like to see Mattamy think A LOT more creatively about seeds and plants, specifically those that attract butterflies and honeybees – milkweed, butterfly weed, bee balm, CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 15 of 19 purple prairie clover, cup plant, aster, allium, serviceberry, wild phlox, coneflower, and so forth. These plants are environmentally friendly and beautiful; everyone likes them and the beneficial insects they attract. What if Mattamy incorporated into our community’s biggest development our biggest butterfly and honeybee meadow. You want people to have good feelings about Mattamy and Shorewood. That’s all I have to say tonight other than to thank the Planning Commission for their service to our community. I do ask that these comments be added verbatim into the record. Henry Miles 24035 Mary Lake Trail Shorewood, MN 55331 (612) 790-1552” Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:17 P.M. Chair Geng suggested Director Nielsen address what the remainder of the Public Hearing process is about. Director Nielsen explained that this is the last of the Public Hearings where public comment is taken unless the City Council chooses to have an additional public hearing; that is Council’s prerogative. Director Nielsen explained if there is something the Commission wants addressed that has not been addressed now is the time to bring that forward. Commissioner Johnson stated a homeowners association (HOA) has been mentioned a number of times. He asked if that will come before the Commission at some point. Director Nielsen stated that typically does not. It goes with the final plat to Council. Nielsen noted there have been times when the Commission has asked to see the declaration of covenants and primarily the development agreement. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the maintenance of the trees in the ROW in the development includes all the things the City or a resident would typically do (e.g.; trimming, removal, cleanup after a storm). Director Nielsen explained there was debate about whether or not the property owners should be responsible for the trees in front of their property. The decision was made that it would be better for the HOA to be responsible for that. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to review how the declaration is going to cover the street tree maintenance and drainage issues. Vice-Chair Davis stated she thought the maintenance of the naturalized areas should be specified. She then stated she thought Mr. Miles’ suggestion to plant things that attract bees and butterflies was outstanding. She knows landscape companies that specialize in that and their gardens are alive. Chair Geng concurred with the suggestion to plant bee and butterfly friendly plants. He noted that Shorewood embarked on that a couple of years ago when it became a bee safe city. In response to someone from the audience, Director Nielsen clarified what the Commission was going to consider recommending approval or denial of the revised concept plan and the Development Stage plans. Commissioner Johnson stated the NAC’s Development Stage plans review report includes comments on tree preservation. It states 988 significant trees would be removed from the site. He would like to be told what percentage of the total trees that is. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 16 of 19 Vice-Chair Davis stated she thought a summary of the NAC report would be helpful for everyone. She thought it was a good report if people took the time to read it. She then stated 900 trees is a lot and noted that what Mattamy is going to have planted is phenomenal. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he understood Mr. Packer to say that when Outlots are incorporated into to other properties the owners of those properties would be responsible for maintaining that land the same way yards within the development would be maintained. He would like to see the language that would compel the property owners to maintain the Outlots. The Outlots would end up being at the back of a property that fronts a different street. He expressed concern about the possibility of the Outlots being overrun with weeds three feet high next to someone’s nice lawn. He asked staff to ask the City Attorney about the longevity of covenants on that type of title transfer. He stated he thought covenants last 20 years. Woodruff then stated a resident mentioned the drainage issue on Lot 5 [on Bentgrass Way]. On one of the plans it shows removal of existing storm sewer that starts on Lot 5 and goes down through Lot 3. He questioned the reason for taking out a storm sewer from a wet area. He does not know what is replacing it. He wants someone to answer that for him. Mr. Packer explained that sewer is just east of the former maintenance building. The golf course maintenance personnel took the lawnmowers there to wash them off. The clippings and so forth from the mowers fell into a pit and the excess water from that went into the pipe and flowed across the site and then was discharged into a wetland. Vice-Chair Davis stated the grading plan shows that drainage would occur appropriately. Council Liaison Woodruff stated there was a comment about the lack of ROW on Country Club Road south of Mary Lake Trail. He asked if there would be access to land after this project to extend the trail down to Yellowstone Trail. Director Nielsen stated the ROW adjoining the property on the northwest corner of Country Club Road and Yellowstone Trail is inadequate; it is only 33 feet wide. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he liked the suggestion of negotiating with that property owner to acquire some land for a trail. In response to a comment from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated the City would get ownership of Outlot F. Commissioner Maddy noted that hackberry trees were cited in the NAC’s report. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he thought the NAC’s report was excellent and he encouraged people who are interested about the proposed landscaping for the MCC development to read that report. From his perspective he did not think the report covered pollinator friendly plants adequately. Mr. Packer noted he would never have thought that when Henry Miles gave his last presentation that he would have agreed with all seven of his points. Commissioner Bean stated Mr. Packer indicated there would be turf and trees in Prestwick Court. He asked if the Court would allow enough room for snowplow trucks to move through that end of the cul-de- sac. Director Nielsen stated it would. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 17 of 19 Commissioner Maddy asked if it would be possible to decouple the solar conversation from the rest of the development plans. Director Nielsen clarified that his recommendation was to have a separate conversation about the possible solar garden. He noted that he is a little skeptical about having solar devices go higher than the peak of the roof. Maddy noted the investment tax credit for solar sunsets at the end of 2016. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a revised Concept Stage plan and Development Stage plans approvals for Mattamy Homes’ planned unit development of the former Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575 Smithtown Road to the Planning Commission’s January 5, 2016. Motion passed 5/0. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 9:36 P.M. Discussion moved to Item 4 on the agenda. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT) Applicant: Sass Investments I, LLC Location: 6035 Galpin Lake Road, 22690 and 22740 Murray Street This was discussed before Item 1 on the agenda. Director Nielsen explained that Mark Sass owns two lots located at 22690 and 22740 Murray Street. In 2006 he arranged to purchase a strip of land about 20 feet in depth behind two lots from the then owner of the 6035 Galpin Lake Road property to the north. The strip of land would bring Mr. Sass’ two lots into better compliance with the R-1C zoning district standards. The 2006 application included vacating existing drainage and utility easements in exchange for new easements along the new property line. The division/combination and easement vacation were approved by the City but they were never recorded with Hennepin County. Mr. Sass’ title company has now reapplied for the same division/combination and easement vacation. Nielsen noted that with the exception of some different owners the analysis and recommendation from 2006 remain unchanged. Therefore, staff again recommends approval of the division and combination and vacation of the existing easements, subject to the applicant providing deeds for the new easements (which he thought the City already has) and a title opinion for review by the City Attorney and the division/combination being recorded within 30 days following Council approval of the request. He then noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation about the division/combination this evening Council will hold a public hearing for this request during its December 14, 2015, meeting. Joan Young, with Premier Title Insurance Agency¸ explained that her Title company was the one that received the documentation in 2006. The company found out the documents were never recorded with Hennepin County. The company intends to correct that situation. Director Nielsen advised the company that because the approval was given so long ago the request had to be made again. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the subdivision/combination of the properties located at 6035 Galpin Lake Road, 22690 Murray Street and 22740 Murray Street as well as the drainage and utility easement vacations in exchange for new easements subject to the to the applicant providing deeds for the new easements and a title opinion for review by the City Attorney and the division/combination being recorded within 30 days following Council approval of the request. Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 18 of 19 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT) Applicant: Al and Jennifer Larson Location: 21125 and 21195 Radisson Director Nielsen explained that Al and Jennifer Larson own the property located at 21195 Radisson Road. They have arranged to purchase the property owned by Ken and Helen Hendrickson at 21125 Radisson Road. The subject properties are located in the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. As part of the transaction, the Larsons propose to rearrange the lot line between the two lots. The westerly lot line of the Hendrickson property cuts across the lake side of the Larson lot. The Larsons propose to straighten out that line along an existing easement that was created years ago. In exchange, they also propose to adjust the lot line as it approaches Radisson Road so it would be more perpendicular with the street. The configurations would be better than what exists today. Their intent is to trade parcels of approximately equal value. The Shorewood Subdivision Code requires the applicants to provide 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements. In this this case the new easements would be along the existing and new side lot lines and along Radisson Road. There is already a sewer easement that runs along Christmas Lake. Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of the subdivision/combination as modified subject to the applicant’s attorney preparing deeds for the new easements and an up-to-date title opinion for the property. Mr. Larson noted he and his wife do have a purchase agreement on the 21125 Radisson Road property. He displayed a rendition of the lot line proposal and highlighted what would change. He noted that what he proposed was different than what was included in the staff report. In response to a question from Commissioner Bean, Director Nielsen explained the Larson property would end up with 40,245 square feet of area and the Hendrickson property would end up with 46,545 square feet of area. Both would comply with the R-1A/S zoning district requirements. Geng moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the subdivision/combination of the properties located at 21125 and 21195 for Al and Jennifer Larson according to the sketch submitted this evening for the new lot line and subject to the applicant’s attorney preparing deeds for the new easements and an up-to-date title opinion. Motion passed 5/0. Discussion returned to Item 1 on the agenda. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This item was discussed after Item 1 on the agenda. Mayor Zerby stated it is his understanding that the role of the Council liaison is to represent the Council and to serve as the liaison between Council and the Planning Commission. He thought it is inappropriate to for the liaison to make their own recommendations and make their own comments without speaking with Council. He noted that he intends to make his comments about the plans during a Council meeting. He stated that is how the position of liaison works from parliamentary procedure. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1, 2015 Page 19 of 19 Director Nielsen stated there is the continuation of the Public Hearing for the Mattamy planned unit development, a minor subdivision, and some discussion about solar slated for the January 5, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Johnson asked if the solar discussion would be specific to a project or about Shorewood in general. Director Nielsen explained it would lead to a general discussion but initial discussions would be about the Mattamy PUD. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s November 23, 2015, work session and meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). • SLUC • Other 8. ADJOURNMENT Bean moved, Johnson seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of December 1, 2015, at 9:40 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder