07 16 2024 Planning Commission Packet
1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
3 TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2024 7:00 P.M.
4
5 DRAFT MINUTES
6
7
8 CALL TO ORDER
9
10 Chair Eggenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 Present: Chair Eggenberger; Commissioners Gorham, Huskins, Holker and Johnson;
15 Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Sanschagrin
16
17 Absent: None
18
19 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
20
21 Commissioner Huskins moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded, approving the agenda
22 for June 4, 2024, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
23
24 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
25
26 May 7, 2024
27
28 Chair Eggenberger explained that if the Commission finds minor things that are needed in the
29 minutes, such as typographical errors, Planning Director Darling would like those to be
30 communicated to her via e-mail, rather than going through them during the meeting.
31
32 Commissioner Huskins suggested that there was a bit of confusion in the minutes related to
33 various references to ‘Church’ and felt it should be clarified in the minutes on whether it is lane or
34 road.
35
36 Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded, approving the Planning
37 Commission Meeting Minutes of May 7, 2024, with the clarifications to references to
38 ‘Church’ and any other non-substantive changes found to be needed. Motion passed 5/0.
39
40 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
41
42 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
43
44 5. OTHER BUSINESS –
45 A. Variance to front and side-yard setback for a non-conforming home
46 Location: 4825 Ferncroft Drive
47 Applicant: Scott Karo
48
49 Planning Director Darling presented the staff report and summarized the application to expand of
50 a non-conforming home located at 4825 Ferncroft Drive. Staff recommends approval subject to
51 the conditions outlined in the staff report.
52
53
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 4, 2024
Page 2 of 6
1 Commissioner Gorham clarified that the applicant was not expanding to the side and just to the
2 front and back. He asked if his understanding was correct that the reason why the side was even
3 mentioned was because this was already a non-conforming structure and they would be
4 expanding the overall structure.
5
6 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and also because the house does not sit exactly
7 plum/parallel with the property lines which means they are getting a little closer on the south side.
8
9 Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to see what is existing versus what is proposed.
10
11 Planning Director Darling noted that this was shown on one of the surveys and noted that the
12 front would be going from 34.5 to 28.6 feet.
13
14 Commissioner Gorham stated that the picture shows two driveway openings and asked about
15 City code for that use.
16
17 Planning Director Darling stated that City code only allows one driveway for each 120 feet of lot
18 frontage, however, that driveway has been in the current configuration since before there were
19 rules for driveways. She explained that the driveway would be considered legally non-conforming.
20
21 Commissioner Gorham asked if that item needed to be part of this application.
22
23 Planning Director Darling stated that it would not, because they are not planning to change the
24 driveway.
25
26 Commissioner Huskins asked for more details regarding the drainage and referenced the staff
27 report that used the phrase ‘not likely’ and that it appeared to drain directly to the lake.
28
29 Planning Director Darling explained that the survey shows the grading and topography of the site
30 although the information didn’t reproduce well. She stated that the survey shows that the side of
31 the property and the home to the south is very consistently graded to just drain straight back.
32
33 Commissioner Huskins asked if there had been any neighbor input on this issue.
34
35 Planning Director Darling noted that she had not heard from any of the adjacent neighbors.
36
37 Commissioner Huskins asked about the ‘minimum to alleviate practical difficulty’ and noted that
38 Planning Director Darling had indicated that it could be less square footage for the garage, but
39 ultimately staff had recommended approval of the requests.
40
41 Planning Director Darling stated that what the applicant is asking for is a 1.4 foot variance which
42 she did not think will be very noticeable. She stated that she felt that it was her job as the Planning
43 Director, to point out that there was nothing magical about a 41 feet 10 inch garage from a zoning
44 perspective.
45
46 Commissioner Johnson asked if the City had discussed the possibility of having a shorter garage
47 with the applicant.
48
49 Planning Director Darling stated that she did not believe that they had that specific discussion.
50
51 Commissioner Gorham asked the applicant about the rationale behind the size of the garage.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 4, 2024
Page 3 of 6
1
2 Scott Karo, 4825 Ferncroft Drive, stated that it was mainly for a boat as well as his vehicles and
3 also just happened to line up with the existing structure of the home. He stated that the front
4 would just line up with the existing roofline. He noted that it could be a foot less, but then it would
5 not like up with the roofline of the existing home.
6
7 Commissioner Gorham asked what a foot less would do to Mr. Karo’s storage needs.
8
9 Mr. Karo explained that it may not make a big difference. He stated that he believed their
10 proposed plans would look more appealing than the old 60’s style and be more in keeping with
11 the newer homes that had been constructed in the area.
12
13 Chair Eggenberger asked if Mr. Karo had read through the conditions recommended by staff.
14
15 Mr. Karo stated that he had read the conditions.
16
17 Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Holker seconded, to recommend approval
18 of the variance requests to front and side-yard setback for a non-conforming home located
19 at 4825 Ferncroft Drive, subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Motion
20 passed 5/0.
21
22 Planning Director Darling stated that this item would go before the City Council on June 24, 2024.
23
24 B. Variance to rear-yard setback for a garage addition
25 Location: 22760 Galpin Lane
26 Applicant: Jeff Danberry, Danberry Properties
27
28 Chair Eggenberger explained that staff has requested that this item be continued to the July 2,
29 2024 meeting but noted that they would still discuss the application tonight.
30
31 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the variance request to the rear-yard setback for a
32 garage addition at 22760 Galpin Lane. She explained that they would like to demolish their
33 existing detached garage and construct a new attached garage. She stated that due to the lot
34 configuration, the rear-yard is along the east property line. She explained that the City had
35 received some of the materials fairly late in the review period so she has not gotten comments
36 back from other staff members yet which was why she recommended that this item be continued
37 to the July 2, 2024 meeting.
38
39 Commissioner Johnson asked if her understanding was correct that because this was a corner
40 lot, moving the setback from 40 feet to 13.8 feet should not actually impact any of the neighbors.
41
42 Planning Director Darling stated that there is just one neighbor to the east.
43
44 Commissioner Holker asked about the distance of the current detached garage.
45
46 Planning Director Darling explained that the current detached garage was about 15 feet from the
47 east property line.
48
49 Chair Eggenberger asked about the garage location for the neighbor to the east.
50
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 4, 2024
Page 4 of 6
1 Jeff Danberry, 27760 Galpin Lane, explained that the home next to his was oriented the same
2 way as his.
3
4 Planning Director Darling confirmed that the garage was at the front of the home along Galpin
5 Lane.
6
7 Commissioner Huskins asked if the existing attached garage was constructed under a variance.
8
9 Planning Director Darling explained that she had looked back through aerial photos and saw that
10 the garage had been there a very long time and would guess that it was originally built along with
11 the home.
12
13 Commissioner Holker asked when the home had originally been built.
14
15 Planning Director Darling stated that she had not looked up that information.
16
17 Commissioner Johnson asked if the postcard notifications were sent out for this item.
18
19 Planning Director Darling confirmed that the postcards and the mailed notices had been sent out
20 and stated that she had only received one phone call from someone who had a question.
21
22 Chair Eggenberger asked Mr. Danberry about the neighbor’s home and gave an example of
23 standing at the garage and looking at that home if he would be looking at the side of the home or
24 the garage.
25
26 Mr. Danberry reiterated that the neighboring home is oriented the same as his and stated that if
27 he was in his driveway looking at the neighbor, he sees the front of his garage. He noted that he
28 had actually planned to push his garage back a bit further so he would be more in line with the
29 neighbor. He explained that his existing detached garage is lower than the street so when it rains
30 he ends up having flooding on the floor of his garage. He stated that he had planned to raise the
31 garage and since he was doing that already, he thought he might as well attach it to the home
32 and make it a bit deeper. He explained that he was not actually going any closer to the neighbor
33 and noted that he felt it was a bit goofy that the rear-yard was actually the east property line. He
34 stated that he believed the home and garage was built sometime in the 1930s and noted that they
35 had remodeled the home about 7 years ago but kept the architecture of the home.
36
37 Commissioner Huskins asked about the drainage and where the water goes currently goes,
38 besides his garage floor, and whether any of the water from his property went onto the neighbor’s
39 property.
40
41 Mr. Danberry stated that he was not changing the direction of the roofline, so even though it is
42 higher, it will not change where the drainage goes He stated that there seems to be a natural
43 swale between their homes right now, which will remain.
44
45 Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Huskins seconded, to continue discussion
46 of the variance to rear-yard setback for a garage addition at 22760 Galpin Lane to the July
47 2, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
48
49 6. REPORTS
50
51 A. Council Meeting Report
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 4, 2024
Page 5 of 6
1
2 Councilmember Sanschagrin gave a brief overview of matters considered and actions taken
3 during the recent City Council meeting.
4
5 The Commission asked questions and discussed details from the recently discussed items.
6
7 B. Draft Next Meeting Agenda
8
9 Planning Director Darling noted that the City got their population estimates for April 1, 2023, and
10 according to the Met Council, the City has 3,104 housing units and 7,958 people. She stated that
11 at the next meeting, the variance request that was continued from tonight’s meeting would be
12 brought back and there may also be a public hearing to review a detached townhome project
13 being proposed along Smithtown Road.
14
15 Chair Eggenberger asked how the workflow for the Planning Department was going.
16
17 Planning Director Darling admitted that the workflow was a bit heavy at the moment.
18
19 Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be a quorum for the planned meeting on July 2,
20 2024.
21
22 Commissioner Huskins stated that he would not be able to attend.
23
24 Commissioner Holker stated that she would also be gone.
25
26 Commissioner Johnson stated that she may not be able to there either.
27
28 Planning Director Darling asked Commissioner Johnson to confirm her attendance with her as
29 soon a possible because she may need to reschedule the meeting. She suggested that they may
30 consider rescheduling to July 16, 2024, if there would be a quorum.
31
32 The majority of the Commission confirmed that they would be able to attend a meeting on July
33 16, 2024.
34
35 Commissioner Gorham referenced the recent application for a private pickle ball club and storage
36 facility and asked if there may be a way to workshop with the Commission, Council and staff, for
37 some of these types of development ideas, before it is formally presented.
38
39 Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt that would be a good idea because the Commission
40 did not always know the overarching ideas that may be floating around because most of the time
41 the Commission is just responding to the application in front of them without this additional
42 information.
43
44 Commissioner Huskins asked if there was an update on the progress of the chocolate house
45 project.
46
47 Planning Director Darling stated that Lake Park Villas are moving dirt around and have the road
48 graded and the retaining walls are going in. She stated that they have submitted a permit request,
49 but noted that it cannot be issued until their utilities and roads are in.
50
51 C. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 4, 2024
Page 6 of 6
1
2 Commissioner Huskins moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded, adjourning the
3 Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2024, at 8:03 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
4
5
Marie Darling
From:Marie Darling
Sent:Thursday, July 11, 2024 9:12 AM
To:Micah Hylarides; Planning
Subject:RE: PUD Concept Plan at 24560 Smithtown Road, Shorewood
Thank you for your comments. I’ll include send them to the planning commission and city council. The staff report
for this item (and the entire information packet for the meeting) will be available on the website on Friday
afternoon for your review.
MARIE DARLING
Planning Director
City Hall: 952.960.7900
5755 Country Club Road Direct: 952.960.7912
Shorewood, MN 55331 mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us
https://www.shorewoodmn.gov/
From: Micah Hylarides <micahhylarides@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 9:06 AM
To: Planning <Planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: PUD Concept Plan at 24560 Smithtown Road, Shorewood
Dear Marie Darling and City of Shorewood Planning Committee:
After reviewing the proposed plans for 24560 Smithtown Road, I would like to voice my concerns over
potential variances given to this developer. The proposed 8 homes on 1 lot does not seem plausible in
that location and would lead to further dissidence of future development in the area.
Some reasons as to why there should be no variances considered:
1) City and People of Shorewood get nothing back in return.
2) Green space will be removed and replaced with too much hardscape.
5) Safety is a potential concern as there are hundreds of children living within a 2 mile radius of this
property. It will increase traffic and congestion on Smithtown near the City's busiest intersection.
3) Drainage looks to be an issue based on the grade of the lot and allowing for additional setback
variances would make this even more of a challenge potentially impeding on the development of
the open city lot adjacent to this property.
4) Noise in the area is already an issue coming from the American Legion and the intersection of
Manitou Road. The existing tree cover helps dampen the volume between commercial and
residential. Removing this would make matters worse.
1
It is understood that the City is looking for more Medium Density Housing, however 2 or 3 homes on one
lot is a much more suitable solution. This would adhere to city requirements and conform to the existing
area and be acceptable to existing residents. Please consider my statement and deny these proposed
plans of this development and be mindful of the tone being set for future developments coming into the
area. These rules are in place to protect the greater good of the community and without any tradeoffs, I
do not see how these plans benefit anyone other than the developer's margins.
Thank you,
Micah Hylarides
2