Loading...
PC-02-16-16 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chair Davis; Commissioners Johnson and Maddy; and, Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Bean APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda for February 16, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  January 5, 2016 Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS Applicant: Gloria Aanenson Location: 19325 Waterford Place Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:02, 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 conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 yards for Gloria Aanenson, 19325 Waterford Place. Director Nielsen explained Ms. Aanenson proposes to raise the level of her back yard to create a level play area for her children. The project involves bringing in approximately 600 cubic yards of fill material on to the site and constructing a rather large retaining wall. Shorewood’s zoning regulations require a C.U.P. permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards and a public hearing be held. He displayed exhibits of plans for the proposed retaining wall. It would be made of boulders. The proposed retaining wall would be approximately 220 feet in total length. It would be located approximately 65 feet from the rear lot line and as close as five feet from the side lot lines. At its highest point it would be 11 feet tall. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 11 The property is zoned planned unit development (PUD) and contains approximately 29,642 square feet of area. The lot slopes down from north to south with approximately 30 feet of grade change between the front and rear of the lot. The area where the fill will be placed is relatively open. Dense deciduous wooded area encompasses the rear yard of the site, south of the applicant’s fence. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained that issues associated with this type of request are typically engineering related. Grading, drainage and structural aspects of the proposed wall are addressed in the Engineer’s report. (A copy of the report was included in the meeting packet.) Nielsen reviewed the Engineer’s comments and recommendations. General 1. At a minimum, prior to the start of any construction a permit must be obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding erosion control. Erosion and Sediment Control 1. All areas disturbed by construction activities must be restored within 14 days of the completion of grading activities. 2. Erosion control such as silt fence must be installed and maintained through the construction period and the establishment of turf. 3. The owner is required to sweep the street(s) to remove material that is tracked off the project site. A street sweeper with a pick-up broom is required. Grading Plan 1. The landscaping plan must provide contours of the site in the area of construction. The proposed finished grades must ensure the stormwater runoff from the site does not flow onto an adjacent parcel from the side-yards, and does not adversely affect adjacent properties. It is recommended that a slight swale be constructed between the bottom of the wall and the side yard property lines. 2. The owner will be responsible for damage to the curb and street due to heavy equipment and trucks hauling material to the site and grading the site. 3. Storage of material on the roadway would not be allowed at any time. Retaining Wall Construction 1. The proposed retaining wall encroaches five feet into the existing drainage and utility easement. If approved, it is recommended that: a. The applicant be required to have a prepared recordable document for County records that indicates the owner will remove, replace, and restore the retaining wall and yard areas disturbed by utility construction in the easement permitted by the City, and any damage caused by the City for access of the easement. b. The owner would be responsible for the costs of any required removal, replacement and restoration required for the permitted use of the easement by the City or others as permitted by the City. c. The document requirements be recorded with the County and the affidavit of recording be submitted to the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 11 2. After the wall is complete, the Engineer of Record must certify in writing to the City that the retaining wall has been constructed in accordance with the design drawings, details and calculations. At staff’s direction, the applicant’s consultants revised their original plans so that no portion of the wall within the 10-foot side yard setback area is higher than six feet tall, the height of a common fence. Any portion of the wall taller than six feet would have to be located at least 10 feet from the side lot lines. Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. subject to the City Engineer’s recommendations. Nathan Anderson, a landscape architect who is working with Ground One Enterprises (the landscape contractor), stated he was present on behalf of the property owner. He thanked the Director Nielsen and Engineer Hornby for their efforts to date. In response to a comment from Vice-Chair Davis, Director Nielsen stated he does not anticipate that there would be a need to do any work in the easement area where the retaining wall would be located. Mr. Anderson explained the reason the encroachment is being requested is to maintain a relatively large River Birch tree. That tree is close to 18 inches in diameter. Vice-Chair Davis expressed concern about what would happen if there was a significant rain event after all of the fill is brought on to the site. She asked when the fill would be brought on to the site. Mr. Anderson responded in the spring. Mr. Anderson then stated they have worked on numerous projects such as the one proposed and that they would be fully prepared for a significant rain event. Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Anderson who he has been working with. Mr. Anderson responded the property owner. Maddy asked if the property owner understands what her responsibilities would be if the utility easements need to be exercised. Mr. Anderson responded she does. Vice-Chair Davis asked if any draintile would be installed behind the retaining wall. Mr. Anderson explained that area would be back filled with “free draining soil” (a sand and gravel mix). Commissioner Maddy stated that he does not see on the drawings where the outlet for that reservoir is. Mr. Anderson stated that is actually percolating; it is not a draintile per se. That granular material would allow any water coming toward the back of the wall to go down rather than through the wall. Vice-Chair Davis noted that the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum recommends walls be built that way. Mr. Anderson stated that because it would be a gravitational boulder wall it would be a permeable structure. Commissioner Johnson stated it is his understanding that what is being proposed is to make the area safer for children. Mr. Anderson stated it would be a more usable space for children. Johnson stated an 11 foot drop doesn’t seem like it would be very safe. Mr. Anderson clarified it would be 11 feet of wall but the finished grade would be a maximum of 9 feet six inches. He explained that part of the landscape plan would include a barrier of planting material on top of the wall to prevent people from walking on top of it. The intent is to plant a hedge by code so it cannot be penetrated through at maturity. Johnson asked if there would be fencing. Mr. Anderson stated there would not be any new fencing and noted there is existing fencing around a swimming pool. Vice-Chair Davis asked how old Ms. Aanenson’s children are. Mr. Anderson stated they are teenagers. Commissioner Maddy stated the City requires swimming pools to be fenced in. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 4 of 11 Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Vice-Chair Davis opened and closed the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. Vice-Chair Davis stated she can understand why the applicant wants to do what is being proposed because the property is very steep. She reiterated her concern about erosion control should there be a significant rain event before the project is complete. Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Gloria Aanenson, 19325 Waterford Place, subject to the recommendations specified in the City Engineer’s report dated January 25, 2016. Motion passed 3/0. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – REVISED DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS – MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going consider revised Development Stage plans for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planned Unit Development (PUD) located at 24575 Smithtown Road for Mattamy Homes. Director Nielsen explained that during its January 5, 2016, meeting the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions, of the Development Stage plans and the preliminary plat for Mattamy Homes’ MCC PUD. This Public Hearing is to consider revisions to those items. He displayed a copy of the original preliminary plat that was recommended for approval. He then displayed a copy of the revised preliminary plat. The developer is proposing that the age-targeted units that were going to be developed on the northeast corner of the site be constructed along the Niblick Alcove cul-de-sac. The traditional lots originally planned for Niblick Alcove would be constructed along Featherie Bay on the northeast corner of the site. The total number of units to be constructed remains the same. The original plat had 17 age-targeted units on the northeast corner and 13 traditional lots on Niblick Alcove. The revised plat has 20 age-target units on Niblick Alcove and 10 traditional lots on Featherie Bay. The revision was made in response to the market which indicates the age-targeted units would be better if they were either look-out or walk-out styles. The revision allows that to happen. Nielsen noted it was necessary to hold another Public Hearing because there was a change to the preliminary plat. Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, reminded the Planning Commission that during its January 5 meeting he had told the Commissioners to expect things to change. He explained that Mattamy’s intent had been to sell the age-targeted lots originally proposed for the northeast corner to another builder for quite some time. About 12 custom builders requested to purchase those lots from Mattamy. Every one of them insisted on having either look-out or walk-out basements rather than basements with only access windows. For a number of engineering reasons that style could not be built on the northeast corner. The CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 5 of 11 suggestion was to build traditional units on the northeast corner, which was Mattamy’s original proposal, and build the age-targeted units (i.e. single level living) along Niblick Alcove. The topography in the Niblick Alcove area allows look-out or walk-out styles to be built without any problems. It is a simple engineering thing that allows units to be built that Mattamy can be successful with. Mr. Packer explained Mattamy has chosen to go with Wooddale Builders for the age-targeted units along Niblick Alcove. That company has done a project in the City of Orono where it built the single level living product and it has done a project in the City of Bloomington along the river bluff. Yesterday that builder sent him its building plans and it wants to build all turned garages. That style would make the front of the houses look very nice. You would not see garage doors from the street. The side of the garages would be treated similar to the exterior of the front of the house. That builder puts a deck and four-season porch off the back on the top elevation. That builder builds a two and a half or three car garage. That adds more to the building footprint. He displayed a drawing showing what the two and one-half car units would look like. He explained the builder wants a modification to the PUD for the setback from the street. The streets in the drawing were private streets and the setback from the curb/sidewalk was 15 feet. One of the reasons Mattamy worries about distance from the street is it wants to ensure people have a place to park a vehicle in front of the garage without the vehicle overhanging the sidewalk or curb. With garages being turned that issue goes away. The MCC age-targeted units would be built along a public street with an 11 – 12 foot boulevard and then a 15 foot setback. Because of the turned garages, the builder has snugged up the house 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side. The builder would not let any of the units to be closer than 15 from each other. He stated that this evening the Planning Commission is also being asked to consider revised setbacks. He noted Mattamy does not want the setback issue to hold up the progress of the preliminary plat process. If he needs to he can come back and talk about the setback separately and provide survey drawings. He displayed additional drawings of what things would look like. Mr. Packer reiterated he received the information about the revised setbacks the previous day. He thought it would be prudent to bring that up during this hearing and get some feedback from the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Davis asked if Wooddale Builders is going to build all of the age-targeted units on the site or just those on Niblick Alcove. Mr. Packer clarified only on Niblick Alcove. Commissioner Johnson asked if the setback revision would only be for the units on Niblick Alcove. Mr. Packer confirmed that. Davis then asked if the changes would be consistent with Mattamy’s taste level. She stated communities are passing ordinances that do not allow garages that butt out of the house. Mr. Packer stated in all of Mattamy’s plans where the garage faces forward the garage never sticks out in front of a house. Davis stated when you look at the drawings all you see is garage after garage after garage. Mr. Packer stated it is impossible to hide the garages. Commissioner Maddy asked what the sidewalk plan is for Niblick Alcove. Mr. Packer clarified there are no sidewalks on the cul-de-sacs. Maddy asked if Mattamy will consider having one along Niblick Alcove now that age-targeted units will be built there. Mr. Packer responded no and noted there would not have been a sidewalk when the age-targeted units were going to be on the northeast corner. Director Nielsen stated there will be a sidewalk on the age-targeted units on the northwest corner. Maddy asked if the change in location affects the location of any of the other proposed trails. Mr. Packer responded no. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 6 of 11 Vice-Chair Davis asked if there will be access to the trail along Country Club Road from the Niblick Alcove cul-de-sac. Mr. Packer responded no and stated the trail does go behind the lots. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Packer to speak about the height comparison; what was proposed and what is being proposed now. Mr. Packer stated he does not have the dimensions of what they were. The new builder’s plans are for an 10/12 slope roof; Mattamy uses an 8/12 slope roof. Therefore, the builder’s houses could be 4 – 5 feet higher. Johnson stated he was talking about a two-story traditional house with an egress basement as compared to a one-story house with a walk-out. Mr. Packer stated they would both be two-story behind the house. Commissioner Maddy asked if staff has developed an opinion on the requested change to the front yard setback for the age-targeted units along Niblick Alcove. Director Nielsen noted that staff just received that information that afternoon. Commissioner Johnson asked if Wooddale Builders is making the age-targeted units longer that what Mattamy had originally proposed. Mr. Packer stated when the garage is turned sideways the house ends up being longer. That results in a loss of some of the back yard or front yard. Commissioner Maddy asked if Wooddale Builders does double loaded streets of the type of house it is proposing. He stated what he visualizes with those age-targeted units is something that looks like a Minneapolis alley; it is going to be garages on both sides. Vice-Chair Davis stated it is very regimented. Maddy asked if that is what the market actually wants. Mr. Packer noted 55 feet is a very standard width for the product proposed. He stated none of the builders Mattamy spoke with had an issue with the width of the lots. Maddy stated his concern was not so much about the width; it was about the garages being way out in front of every house. Mr. Packer stated, for example, there would be a garage that is 22 feet wide that comes forward as opposed to the entire house which is 40 feet wide being forward. What had been proposed was 40 feet of face 25 feet back from the curb; the new proposal is 20 feet of face that would be 15 feet back. He thought the new proposal mixes things up more. However, there is no garage left or right option. All the garages have to be on the same side. Mr. Packer stated if there is any receptiveness to what is proposed then the Planning Commission would be provided with actual streetscapes. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the product or the lots came first. Did Wooddale Builders see the lots and realize they had a product for them? Or, was the property subdivided to accommodate the houses? Mr. Packer stated the lots are fine and noted that if Mattamy could not have found a builder who wanted to build on them then Mattamy would have built them. He reiterated Mattamy does not want to hold up the preliminary plat because of Wooddale Builders’ proposal. He clarified all that is being changed is the grading plan and the setbacks. The grading plan benches back another seven feet. Davis stated she does not think seeing all the garages along Niblick Alcove is consistent with the way Mr. Packer has described Mattamy’s taste or with the age-targeted units originally proposed for the northwest corner of the site. She clarified that she prefers the new proposed location for the age-targeted units on the east side of the site. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. Karen Couney, 5925 Seamans Drive, stated she would like to offer her perspective on Wooddale Builders’ proposed age-targeted units being she is around that age. She likes the little plaza being created between the garage and the front door. As a person ages it is closer from the front of the garage to the front door. A visitor can drive up closer to the front door of the house. When a car parks in front of a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 7 of 11 street facing garage a visitor’s car is parked further away from the front door. And, there is no personal plaza for interacting. Bev Meakins, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, stated she liked Commissioner Maddy’s analogy of the look of a Minneapolis alley. All a person will see is garage after garage after garage. She does not envision it would look very attractive. She does not think it would have a much of a single-family residential feeling. She then stated she thought the number of proposed houses has been increased. On the plat she was looking at there had been four houses total on 49 – 52 and another four houses total on 53 – 56. Now there are five houses on each. She asked when that happened. Mr. Packer stated that happened when Bentgrass Way was moved down to save trees. Ms. Meakins asked if Niblick Alcove was a golf term. Commissioner Johnson stated all the street names have some golf significance. George Greenfield, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, stated that during a conversation with Shorewood Director of Public Works Brown he indicated that the City had approved working hours of 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the construction hours are 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. weekdays, 8:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. Saturdays, and no work on Sundays. Mr. Greenfield stated he thought that was excessive for a number of reasons. He does not want to come home from work, sit down to eat dinner and have to listen to construction noise after 6:00 P.M. He thought a 10-hour day for people who are doing that type of physical work is more than long enough. Construction workers generally cannot live in a location convenient to the construction site. Having a 12-hour workday and then travel time ruins their personal lives. Mr. Greenfield stated he read in the local paper that the new price of the age-targeted units midway down the east side of the site is going to be higher than the price originally mentioned. Mr. Packer concurred. That is the third time the price has changed on the age-targeted units. He thought that is contrary to the spirit of what the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) recommended; it wanted some diversity in housing style and price. He thought a couple of members of Council made what now seems to be insincere protestations about wanting multiple prices of houses in the development. He viewed the price changes as a “bait and switch” type of thing. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:50 P.M. Vice-Chair Davis stated that she personally does not care for the new look of the proposed age-targeted units on the east. She agrees with the analogy that it would look like an alley. She does not think it would be at the taste level that Mattamy promised the City. She thought that area would look different than the rest of the development and from what has been promised for the age-targeted units on the northeast corner. She clarified that is her opinion. She noted that she appreciates the logistics and problems of the new age-targeted lots; they are very narrow and very deep. Commissioner Johnson stated he has seen it done where it can work with a significant amount of landscaping and that will drive the price even higher. He wants to see what the houses would look like on the lots before he completely weighs in on this; that information is not available. Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Packer to speak to the new price of the various housing types. Mr. Packer stated he thought the starting prices would be around $600,000 and then go up from there based on how it is finished for the age-targeted units Wooddale Builders will build. The age-targeted units Mattamy will build will start around $450,000 and its traditional houses will start closer to $700,000 and range up to about $900,000. The custom houses east of Club Valley Road near the large wetland area will be $1 million plus units. He noted that by the time Mattamy starts to build its age-targeted units the starting price will likely go up to $600,000 because of an increase in construction costs. He also noted that CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 8 of 11 there will not be any of what is termed “affordable” in that development. The ground is too expensive for that. He stated Mattamy’s very base house without the lot is around $275,000 and that well exceeds the median range for a family in the Twin Cities. Mr. Packer stated it would be rare to have one construction crew on the site working a 12-hour shift. Different trades come and go during the day. Some workers will be working inside into the early evening. Generally the heavy trades workers begin working early in the morning and are done by 5:00 P.M. Vice- Chair Davis asked if the most disruption would be during grading and installing the storm sewer. Mr. Packer stated that is when the heavy machinery will be moving around and generating beeping sounds. Mr. Maddy stated that framers make a lot of noise also. Mr. Packer noted that one of the conditions of approval is the construction traffic will come onto the site from the north. Commissioner Maddy asked if Mattamy has any standard job site requirements for subcontractors. Mr. Packer stated how they must act and behave is in Mattamy’s contract. Vice-Chair Davis re-opened the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. Whitley Mott, 24890 Yellowstone Trail, asked Mr. Packer if moving the cul-de-sac would put extra traffic pressure on Yellowstone Trail. He expressed concern that the people living in the age-targeted units on the east will exit on to Yellowstone Trail. There will be 10 more age-targeted units than there would have been traditional units. He asked if the Traffic Committee has weighed in on this. Vice-Chair Davis stated it is likely they will exit and enter on to the site from Yellowstone Trail. She noted the Traffic Committee would not have seen the revised plat. Director Nielsen confirmed that and explained that the Committee was advised at the outset that it was not to deal with the design of the plat. For example, some of the Committee members wanted some streets to access Country Club Road. Commissioner Maddy asked when the Committee next meets. Nielsen noted the Committee is almost done with what it was asked to do. It is currently working on its report of final recommendations. Vice- Chair Davis recommended the Committee be provided with a copy of the revised preliminary plat. Mr. Packer explained that question had been asked and answered when the number of lots was increased from 121 to 140. The consensus of all of the traffic engineers was that the residents living in the age- targeted units would generate less traffic than those in the single-family traditional units. People who purchase the age-targeted units would likely be empty nesters; they would not have children in school. They may also be retired. He stated if he lived on the site and wanted to go south on Highway 41 he would exit the site on the south on to Yellowstone Trail. He then stated he does not think relocating the age-targeted units on the east to the south would impact traffic. Vice-Chair Davis asked what changes have to be made to the setbacks. Director Nielsen stated the developer is asking for a 15 foot front yard setback for the age-targeted units proposed for along Niblick Alcove. And, instead of the 7.5 foot side yard setbacks he is asking for a 5 foot and a 10 foot setback. The distance between two houses would still be 15 feet. Vice-Chair Davis again closed the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:59 P.M. Vice-Chair Davis asked what the setbacks are for the age-targeted units on the northwest corner. Director Nielsen stated 35 feet. Davis stated the 15 foot front yard setback for the age-targeted units on the east would go to the garage and then another 20 feet back to the house. She reiterated she is not fond of the most recent proposal. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Johnson stated he wants to see things on paper before he makes a recommendation on the setbacks. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the units could be staggered because of the depth of some of the lots. She stated because she does not have the grading plan she cannot determine what the terrain is. Commissioner Maddy stated he was somewhat sold on the idea; he does not mind it very much. Vice- Chair Davis stated that might be because he had lived in the city. Maddy stated there are many residential properties in Shorewood that have garages that reach out to one side or the other. This PUD would be an opportunity to diversify housing stock. He noted that he is not comfortable with stating an opinion on the setbacks this evening. Commissioner Johnson noted he is in agreement with the information the Planning Commission had been provided before this meeting. Director Nielsen noted the revised preliminary plat does not change regardless of the setbacks. The Planning Commission can recommend approval of the preliminary plat so that Council can consider taking action on it during its February 22 meeting. The Commission could then discuss the setbacks during its March 15, 2016, meeting. Commissioner Maddy stated if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat and eventually does not recommend approval of the change in setbacks he asked Mr. Packer if Mattamy would still want to change the location of the age-targeted units on the east side of the site. Mr. Packer responded yes. Davis moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the revised Development Stage plans for the Minnetonka Country Club planned unit development located at 24575 Smithtown Road, as presented which shows the age-targeted units on the east have been moved to Niblick Alcove. Motion passed 3/0. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:04 P.M. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Vice-Chair Davis stated she heard residents talking about hockey rinks. She had asked Director Nielsen what type of permit is needed for rinks and learned that a fence permit is required. She saw a property where there was a rink with blazing lights around it on the front of the property. She explained that during Council’s February 8, 2016, meeting it approved a nuisance ordinance amendment related to air pollution from an outdoor furnace. She stated there are a lot of things that are nuisances in the City that may or may not need permits and she suggested the Planning Commission revisit that as part of its work plan. Director Nielsen noted there is one whole Chapter in the City Code related to nuisances. He stated discussion of nuisances could be added to the Commission’s 2016 work plan. Director Nielsen stated he is going to suggest to Council that the 2017 budget include funding for a consultant to do the next update to the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. He noted he will provide the Commissioners with a copy of the City’s System Statement from the Metropolitan (Met) Council. It talks CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 10 of 11 about what the Met Council expects from Shorewood and other communities. That will basically start the discussion about the update to the Comp Plan. He asked the Commissioners to start to think about planning issues and he will ask the same of Council and the Park Commission. He commented that the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) development suggested that the area encompassed by it along Club Lane be considered for different housing as it redevelops. He stated he anticipates the City will receive proposals for developments in the Smithtown Crossing area. Nielsen noted that as of yet he has not drafted the 2016 work plan. There was ensuing discussion about elderly housing and various projects being considered in the community and nearby communities. There was discussion about other items that maybe should be included in the work plan. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the consideration of revised setbacks for the Minnetonka Country Club development project and the Oppidan elderly housing project are slated for the March 15, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. The Lehman’s want to rezone their property located over by Radisson Road and Mary Lane. That will be on the agenda as well. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the request for revised setbacks will require a public hearing. Director Nielsen stated he needed to research that. Davis asked if there has been any progress on giving some of the outlots away. Nielsen stated he did not know and the use of the outlots will be addressed in the Declaration of Covenants. Davis asked if the Planning Commission will see the Covenants. Nielsen stated the Commission asked to so it will and noted that is not required by the City Ordinance. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Vice-Chair Davis reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s February 8, 2016, meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meetings). • SLUC Commissioner Maddy stated the next Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session is about the new real estate market. It is part two of a three session discussion. • Other Vice-Chair Davis asked if an artificial turf playfield is going to be put in Badger Park. Director Nielsen stated the City has solicited quotes to do that. Davis asked if that is a good idea. Nielsen stated he thought there are a lot of good reasons to do that. One of them is reduced maintenance costs. He had spoken to someone where an artificial turf playfield was installed and that individual indicated that their watering costs, fertilizing and maintenance was about $40,000 less than for a regular grass field. It is anticipated CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 11 of 11 that the artificial turf playfield will add an extra month of play. He noted that the snow sculptures built as part of the Arctic Fever event will not be built on the artificial turf playfield. 7. ADJOURNMENT Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 16, 2016, at 8:32 P.M. Motion passed 3/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder