Loading...
08 20 2024 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2024 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE GORHAM (Sep) ______ EGGENBERGER () _ _ HUSKINS () ______ HOLKER (Aug) ______ JOHNSON (Sep) absent COUNCIL LIAISON SANSCHAGRIN(Feb-Jun) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON ZERBY (Jul-Dec)______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  July 16, 2024 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, that is not on tonight's agenda, but related to the governance of the City of Shorewood, to the attention of the Planning Commission. In providing this limited public forum, the City of Shorewood expects respectful participation. We encourage all speakers to be courteous in their language and behavior, and to confine their remarks to those facts that are relevant to the question or matter under discussion. Anyone wishing to address the Commission should raise their hand and wait to be called on. Please make your comments from the podium and identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on this matter. The Commission may request the issue be forwarded to the City Council or to staff to prepare a report and place it on the next agenda. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) CUP Application for AT&T antenna collocation Location: 24283 Smithtown Road Applicant: AT&T Mobility Tentative review at City Council: August 26, 2024 B) Cannabis Related Amendments to the Zoning Regulations Location: Citywide Applicant: City of Shorewood Tentative review at City Council: August 26, 2024 5. OTHER BUSINESS A) Discuss amendments to R-3B zoning district and related improvements Location: City-wide Applicant: City of Shorewood 6. REPORTS A) Council Meeting Report B) Draft Next Meeting Agenda ADJOURNMENT 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 3 TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2024 7:00 P.M. 4 5 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; and 15 Planning Director Darling 16 17 Absent: None 18 19 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20 21 Holker moved, Huskins seconded, approving the agenda for July 16, 2024, as presented. 22 Motion passed 5/0. 23 24 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25 26  June 4, 2024 27 28 Planning Director Darling reviewed the handful of typographical errors that had been brought to 29 her attention. She noted that they were not substantive, so, with the Commission’s approval she 30 would go ahead and make the necessary changes. 31 32 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 33 of June 4, 2024, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 34 35 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR – NONE 36 37 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 38 Chair Eggenberger explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the 39 City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners 40 are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in 41 determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to 42 hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make 43 a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. 44 45 A. PUBLIC HEARING – PUD CONCEPT PLAN TO DEVELOP SEVEN DETACHED 46 TOWNHOUSES 47 Applicant: Admark, LLC 48 Location: 24560 Smithtown Road 49 50 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request for a PUD concept stage plan to allow 51 24560 Smithtown Road to be developed with seven detached houses. She noted that the original 52 submittal was for eight units, but they have removed one unit. She explained that although the 53 homes were detached, the property would be maintained like a townhome development with a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 2 of 14 1 homeowner’s association She stated that the concept stage of development plans are intended 2 to be an introduction to the development proposal and give the City the ‘flavor’ of the development. 3 She noted that the full depth of information would be provided within the subsequent phases. She 4 stated that the proposed homes would be between 1,200 to 1,800 sq. ft. and would be accessed 5 by a shared private drive that would be designed as a fire lane including a turn around for 6 emergency vehicles as well as other large vehicles. She explained that the applicant planned to 7 market the homes to empty nesters, but they may also appeal to young families. She reviewed 8 the Comprehensive Plan guidance for the property of medium density and noted that their 9 proposal was consistent with the required density. She explained that the applicant has requested 10 flexibility in the typical dimensional requirements of lot area, setbacks, impervious surface 11 coverage, and reiterated that they were proposing a private drive instead of a public street and 12 reviewed details related to the requests for flexibility. She gave a brief overview of other site 13 details related to their proposal regarding design of the homes, utilities, stormwater, and tree 14 preservation plans. She outlined the next steps within the development process and explained 15 that staff recommended approval of the application for the PUD concept plan, subject the 16 conditions listed in the staff report. She noted that the City had received 2 letters regarding this 17 application, one from an individual and the other from a group residents and gave a summary of 18 the general concerns that were raised. 19 20 Chair Eggenberger stated that he wanted to make it clear to the audience that the Planning 21 Commission would be voting on the concept and would not be voting to change any zoning. 22 23 Commissioner Huskins stated that within the staff report there was a reference to Smithtown Lane 24 and asked if, in all instances, that should actually be Smithtown Road. 25 26 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and explained that Smithtown Lane was further 27 west. 28 29 Commissioner Johnson referenced the road and the driveways and asked about the 30 recommendation that the garages not have any storage. 31 32 Planning Director Darling stated that staff had recommended that at least one parking space 33 inside the unit be preserved for parking. She noted that smaller vehicles can park in the garage 34 and on the driveways and explained that what the applicant had provided met all the ordinance 35 requirements. She stated that the plans do not show much in the way of guest parking spaces, 36 but noted that the City also did not have any requirements for that. She noted that the City could 37 require that they add a few guest parking spaces on the end of the turn around area, but that is 38 the area that they are trying to use for snow storage in the winter. 39 40 Commissioner Johnson asked if parking was permitted on the side that is not where the 41 garages/driveways are located. 42 43 Planning Director Darling explained that it is a 26 foot wide road, which is wider than many of the 44 City streets, that do have parking, but because it was considered a fire lane, they would not 45 typically allow parking. She stated that she could explore that possibility a bit further with the fire 46 inspector. 47 48 Chair Eggenberger asked if the City would have any control over parking if it were a private drive. 49 50 Planning Director Darling stated that the City can have control over it because it will be a fire lane. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 3 of 14 1 Commissioner Johnson stated that the report indicated that there would not be egress windows, 2 so there would also not be basements in some of the units, unless they were walk-outs. 3 4 Planning Director Darling stated that the look-outs or walk-outs would most likely be more to the 5 north on the site. 6 7 Commissioner Johnson asked how much room there would be in the yard for the walk-out units. 8 9 Planning Director Darling noted that it was currently shown at 10 feet, but they may want to 10 propose some decks off the back on the walk-out units so they may end up extending that 11 boundary a bit closer to the infiltration basin. She stated that the applicant would provide more 12 information on that in their subsequent phases. 13 14 Commissioner Holker asked if just the two back lots would be the walk-outs. 15 16 Planning Director Darling confirmed that was her understanding. 17 18 Chair Eggenberger stated that by moving those back two lots together if the City knew how much 19 room would be saved or if that would have to wait for the final plans. 20 21 Planning Director Darling stated that there is about 10 feet between the units, so there would be 22 about 10 feet to the private drive and 10 feet to the west property line. 23 24 Commissioner Huskins stated that because the orientation of the units are south to north and are 25 close together, he asked what staff’s sense was for the possible sunlight impacts, especially 26 during the winter months. 27 28 Planning Director Darling stated that if the site were going up in elevation towards the north, there 29 would be more sunlight for each of the homes, but this will still allow for some sunlight. 30 31 Commissioner Huskins asked about the unit sizes and if the intent was to vary the size offering 32 between 1,200 and 1,800 sq. ft. 33 34 Planning Director Darling explained that there are optional upper levels and optional basements 35 for most of the homes, so it would depend on how much of those extra spaces the customer 36 wanted to purchase. She clarified that the footprints would not change because there would not 37 be enough room for additions. 38 39 Commissioner Johnson stated that it looked like the access road would be on the boundary with 40 the American Legion. 41 42 Planning Director Darling stated that it would not because the American Legion was not the 43 directly abutting property. She noted that directly to the right is the car repair business and the 6 44 unit apartment building and explained that the driveway would be right along the commercial and 45 the apartment building. 46 47 Commissioner Holker asked about the future updates to the City Code and whether something 48 that may change would be the impervious surface requirements. 49 50 Planning Director Darling confirmed that was the type of thing they would be looking at and 51 explained that they will be looking at the R-3B zoning district first and will be looking at lot areas 52 and impervious surface coverage. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 4 of 14 1 2 Commissioner Holker asked about the setback to the west boundary. 3 4 Planning Director Darling stated that it was 10 feet and they are asking for that to be considered 5 a side property line rather than a rear. 6 7 Commissioner Holker stated that the lot next door was also zoned the same and may be a bit 8 more narrow than this lot. She asked if someone brought in a similar proposal for that lot if it 9 would make sense that the units would end up being situated back yard to back yard. 10 11 Planning Director Darling answered that they could be situated back yard to back yard and noted 12 that the property next door was guided the same way within the Comprehensive Plan, but had 13 not been rezoned. 14 15 Commissioner Gorham stated that he had similar questions as those raised by Commissioner 16 Holker and asked Planning Director Darling to review the Comprehensive Plan drafting and the 17 logic of the medium density of 6-8 units/acre. 18 19 Planning Director Darling explained that the Comprehensive Plan was drafted after the Smithtown 20 Road study to have medium density, which had a lower general density range attached to it. She 21 noted that initially, the City attempted to make almost no changes to their density and take 22 advantage of some of the neighboring cities higher density development, but the Met Council 23 rejected that approach and told them that the City could not use any of the density that had been 24 approved in other communities to satisfy these requirements. She stated that this meant that the 25 City took a look at areas of the City that would potentially accommodate some additional 26 development. 27 28 Commissioner Gorham stated that Planning Director Darling had talked about the weird timing 29 and asked if this had come forward in a year or two if it would still be moving forward as PUD. 30 31 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed that they would almost have to do it as a PUD 32 because they are proposing detached townhomes versus a single townhouse structure and also 33 a private drive. 34 35 Commissioner Gorham stated that Planning Director Darling had talked about the 15 foot distance 36 at the golf course down the street, but he felt that the conversation there was very different, 37 because there were trade-offs and noted that he didn’t feel this would be the same type of trade- 38 off. 39 40 Planning Director Darling noted that she felt that the unit type they were proposing was interesting 41 because it is a bit higher density, but still single-family designed development. She stated that it 42 would still provide a suburban feel with the single family homes, but would be clustered together 43 to provide the density directed by the Comprehensive Plan and the common maintenance of an 44 HOA. She explained that in the medium density developments in the standard zoning districts, 45 they will likely be primarily looking at townhomes. 46 47 Commissioner Johnson referenced the trees and asked about the location of the old maple trees 48 and if there may be a way to save some of them. 49 50 Planning Director Darling stated that with the current layout they would not be able to save any of 51 the maple trees. She stated that if they took out one more of the units and pulled the northerly CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 5 of 14 1 units further to the south, there is a chance that 2 of the trees could be saved, but those were 2 green ash trees. She noted that the maple trees were located towards the middle of the site. 3 4 Commissioner Johnson asked what staff knew about the eagle’s nest. 5 6 Planning Director Darling stated that she did not believe the eagle’s nest was on this property and 7 was simply in the vicinity. 8 9 Commissioner Holker asked if there was any common space. 10 11 Planning Director Darling clarified that the City would know more about that when they come in 12 with their Preliminary Plan. 13 14 Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be ponds or greenspace on the site. 15 16 Planning Director Darling explained that they were proposing infiltration basins, which are like rain 17 gardens. 18 19 Commissioner Holker asked where Christopher Road was in relation to this site. 20 21 Planning Director Darling explained that Christopher Road was the first street to the west. 22 23 Commissioner Huskins asked if there were concerns, from a safety standpoint, since it is a bit of 24 a curved line onto Smithtown Road. He referenced Strawberry Lane and the bike path where 25 there was a requirement that the alignment be altered so it would be perpendicular where it 26 crossed the road and asked if something like that may also be required in this instance. 27 28 Planning Director Darling stated that had not come up as a requirement, but she could have the 29 City Engineer look at that if the Commission would like. 30 31 Commissioner Huskins stated that he would like the City Engineer to take a look at that issue 32 before it goes to the City Council. 33 34 Commissioner Johnson asked if the developer would work with the City to install sidewalks and 35 asked if that would be on the southerly boundary between the street and the City property. 36 37 Planning Director Darling stated that they were talking about placing a sidewalk in the City right- 38 of-way between their development site and connecting to where there is already a sidewalk in 39 front of the American Legion. She noted that the City cannot require them to do this, but was 40 something that they could voluntarily propose. 41 42 Commissioner Gorham stated that he was still pondering the trade-off and asked if they came to 43 the City with an 8 unit apartment building if they would be able to do that without a PUD, in the 44 next year or two. 45 46 Planning Director Darling stated that they could ask for the R-3B zoning district now and put that 47 in. 48 49 Commissioner Gorham stated that they may need an impervious surface or other minor variances 50 needed in that scenario. He explained that he was just trying to weigh this design against what 51 could come back to the City in a year without having the weight of the PUD hanging over their CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 6 of 14 1 heads. He stated that what takes the forefront for him is that this will soon be zoned differently, 2 according to the Comprehensive Plan and was essentially just bad timing for the applicant. 3 4 Planning Director Darling stated that it would have been nicer if the City had the new zoning in 5 place, but they were working on the highest density zoning districts first. 6 7 Tara Kaltsas explained that she was one of the owners of Admark and noted that typically 8 Planning Director Darling worked with her husband, Mark but he had to attend another City 9 Council meeting this evening. She stated that related to parking, they have an option to make 10 the garages bigger so they could have more parking there. She stated that they understand that 11 there will be a loss of trees on this lot and explained that they plan to back more trees than there 12 were before. She stated that part of their reason for the units was the grading of the site because 13 they felt it would be better to be able to step the units down and give the opportunity for sunlight 14 between the buildings. 15 16 Commissioner Huskins asked what the front facing property would look like and if there would be 17 a wall, façade, or gate. 18 19 Ms. Kaltsas stated that they will make it has beautiful as the City would like. She noted that they 20 had talked about having a gate with other plans they had presented to the City and would be 21 happy to include that again, as well as any architectural or landscaping features that they would 22 like to see. 23 24 Commissioner Huskins explained that his major concern was related to sight lines when entering 25 or exiting the property. 26 27 Ms. Kaltsas stated that they know there are lots of kids in the neighborhood and understand the 28 concern because they also live here. She explained that they will work with the engineers to make 29 sure that it is safe. 30 31 Commissioner Huskins stated that in the back area of the property there is a park and asked if 32 there would be a way for people to walk back and forth. 33 34 Ms. Kaltsas stated that their intent is to have a connection and install a sidewalk. 35 36 Commissioner Huskins asked how Ms. Kaltsas felt about some of the recommendations staff had 37 put together in the staff report. 38 39 Ms. Kaltsas stated that because her husband and Planning Director Darling had worked hard to 40 find something that they could agree on, they felt good about the staff recommendations. 41 42 Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:49 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public 43 Hearing. 44 45 Paul Hirsch, 24590 Smithtown Road, stated that they are right next door to this site and explained 46 that his concern was with the proposed density. He stated that he did not like the concept plan 47 and felt that allowing 8 homes on this lot would be ridiculous and explained that he liked the 48 previous proposal better than this version. He stated that it was disappointing to him that the City 49 has a plan that also involved his lot, which he owns. He stated that these people bought a property 50 in order to develop it, but the City has their own agenda with the Comprehensive Plan that they 51 now have to conform to. He noted that this should be a free enterprise because this is America 52 and explained that he felt this situation was just sad. He reiterated that having 8 units on this site CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 7 of 14 1 was wrong and also pointed out the location of the eagle’s nest using an aerial photo. He stated 2 that he has been in the City since 1986 and objected to these plans, because he believed that 3 people come to Shorewood because they want some space and not to have homes on top of 4 each other. 5 6 Robin Niss, 5690 Christopher Road, stated that he was part of the aggregate Christopher Road 7 group. He stated that, as a whole, they have several objections that were outlined in their letter. 8 He explained that the biggest concern they have is the density because that is not a good fit for 9 the neighborhood. He stated that although they are entitled to develop the lot, they feel that less 10 density would be beneficial for the community and also would be better received given the 11 setbacks and access to the road. He stated he would like to see them reconfigure things and find 12 a happy balance with the community and the developers that had less density. 13 14 Commissioner Gorham asked if his group had already had conversations with the developer. 15 16 Mr. Niss stated that he had not had any conversations with the developer but could not speak for 17 everyone in their group. 18 19 Mr. Hirsch asked how many PUD developments there were in the City. 20 21 Planning Director Darling stated that were currently 3 PUD projects under development in the 22 City. 23 24 Mr. Hirsch asked if those projects had zoning similar to this project with 8 units/acre. 25 26 Planning Director Darling reviewed the projects, their location, and details of the developments. 27 28 Mr. Hirsch urged the Commission to think about this from the perspective where 8 units would be 29 going in right next to their homes. 30 31 Ms. Kaltsas stated that she wanted them to know that they heard their concerns the first time and 32 came back with something that the City Council did not approve. She stated that what they are 33 proposing is what is required with a PUD and 6-8 units/acre and noted that they have reduced 34 the number of units down to 7. 35 36 A member of the audience asked why this was what was required. 37 38 Ms. Kaltsas stated that it is required because of the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. 39 40 A member of the audience stated that means it was being dictated. 41 42 Planning Director Darling explained that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the City was 43 told by the Met Council that they needed to accommodate 55 units for future development 44 between now and 2040. She stated that the City was able to identify which areas that would work 45 best which is when they looked at these 3 parcels for medium density. 46 47 Ms. Kaltsas reiterated that the option they had as the developer was to develop this with 6-8 48 units/acre because that is what was in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 49 50 Mr. Niss asked about the density of the other PUD projects that Planning Director Darling had 51 reviewed. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 8 of 14 1 Planning Director Darling stated that Maples Shores and the development at Eureka and Highway 2 7 were developed with close to 2 units/acre and the Smithtown Road site was developed with 4.5 3 units/area. 4 5 Mr. Niss stated that they did not feel that this was the spot that should have higher density 6 because there are single family residential units that will border them. He stated that he 7 understands that the developer has the right to develop the property, but reiterated that the overall 8 density was the issue they had with the project. He stated that if there was a way for them to 9 remove a few units, that may benefit everybody. 10 11 Chair Eggenberger closed the Public Hearing at 8:01 P.M. 12 13 Commissioner Johnson asked what discretion there may be in the City to modify the density. 14 15 Planning Director Darling explained that it would require that the applicant to submit a request for 16 a Comprehensive Plan amendment which would have to be reviewed by the Met Council. 17 18 Commissioner Johnson stated that this lot is less than an acre, so she felt that a density should 19 also be less than 6-8 units. 20 21 Planning Director Darling clarified that 6-7 units/acre is what is required under this land use. 22 23 Commissioner Johnson stated that meant that 6 units was something that the developer could 24 consider. 25 26 Commissioner Holker asked if the City had gone back to the Met Council since the 27 Comprehensive Plan was approved to make any amendments. 28 29 Planning Director Darling explained that the City had not had a proposal. 30 31 Commissioner Johnson asked how the City decided which ones have 6-8 units/acre and which 32 have 2-3 units/acre. 33 34 Planning Director Darling explained that this site, and the 2 properties to the west were designated 35 as an area where 6-8 units/acre would be appropriate. She stated that within that overall range, 36 developers can propose a number of units. 37 38 Commissioner Johnson asked for additional information on how the City decided that these 39 parcels should be medium density and have 6-8 units/acre. 40 41 Planning Director Darling reiterated that when the Met Council rejected the City’s initial 42 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission and the Council worked together to come up with 43 areas in the City that would be appropriate for slightly higher densities, such as this site. 44 45 A man from the audience questioned in the involvement of the Met Council. 46 47 Chair Eggenberger reminded the audience that the public hearing had been closed. 48 49 Commissioner Johnson asked for information about the jurisdiction of the Met Council and what 50 the metro cities can and cannot do. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 9 of 14 1 Planning Director Darling stated that the City was a home rule city, and they base their existence 2 on the statutes that the State has for them which means that they govern how they can organize 3 and develop as a city. She explained that one of those requirements is that any city within the 4 metropolitan area needs to submit a Comprehensive Plan every 10 years for review by the Met 5 Council including its consistency with regional plans. 6 7 Commissioner Johnson asked if cities like Edina or Plymouth would be subject to the same rules 8 and similar density requirements. 9 10 Planning Director Darling stated that every community is different and noted that some of the 11 communities had to absorb hundreds of units and not just 55 like Shorewood had to do. She 12 stated that the requirement of 55 units for Shorewood was based on their size and the fact that 13 the community is already primarily developed. 14 15 Chair Eggenberger stated that the Met Council was created in order to regulate growth in the 16 metropolitan area. 17 18 Planning Director Darling agreed and noted that the Met Council also provides basic services 19 such as sewer or transit. 20 21 Commissioner Huskins stated that what he has heard is that if the developer wished to they could 22 file for a Comprehensive Plan amendment in order to be able to do something other than a 23 medium density project on the property and asked if the developer may be interested in something 24 like that. 25 26 Ms. Kaltsas stated that they would not be interested in something like that anymore because it 27 has already taken them 2 or 3 years to get to this point. She explained that they want to move 28 forward with what they have now. 29 30 Commissioner Holker asked if it would be financially viable for the developer to remove a unit and 31 have a total of 6 on the property. 32 33 Ms. Kaltsas stated that it would be difficult, which is why they were proposing 7 units. 34 35 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would describe the proposed homes as carriage houses 36 or detached villas and asked if they had considered side by side townhomes that would allow for 37 the density to take place within a smaller footprint. 38 39 Ms. Kaltsas stated that they could push them together, but the way the lot is laid out they will not 40 be as appealing because the grading wouldn’t be as nice because there wouldn’t be space 41 between each home. She clarified that they could do it, but she did not think it would be the best 42 product. 43 44 Chair Eggenberger stated that if the developer meets the requirements, it means that they have 45 the right to put in the number of units that they want, in the way that they find the most appealing, 46 so they can sell the homes. 47 48 Commissioner Gorham noted that the developer needed things from the City in order to pull off 49 this vision of the project. He stated that they are cramming the homes onto this lot and explained 50 that his questions earlier were to determine that this lot could be built out in a different way in a 51 year or two where the City would have far less control over the outcome. He stated that he thinks CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 10 of 14 1 that they have to weigh the future zoning of this property versus what it looks like now and whether 2 this PUD is a trade-off for some future, unknown, but legal development. 3 4 Commissioner Holker stated that this has already been a 3 year process and isn’t sure that the 5 City has any hard and fast timing for the work to refine the code. 6 7 Planning Director Darling stated that there is guidance from the Met Council on how long it should 8 take the City to implement the Comprehensive Plan, but noted that they are a bit behind schedule. 9 10 Commissioner Johnson stated that there must be parcels throughout the City that are supposed 11 to accommodate the additional 55 units in the City and asked if they were also 1 acre parcels. 12 She reiterated that she was not sure how the City was able to pick and choose how things were 13 developed that way. 14 15 Planning Director Darling stated that they had looked at a variety of sites and shared various 16 examples from around the City. 17 18 Commissioner Johnson stated that it is kind of hard to have this parcel at a density number without 19 knowing how the others would end up. She gave the example of the dredging company property 20 that has density of 8-30 units and asked if they ended up doing 30 units if that meant the other 21 parcels in the City would get a break from the density requirements. 22 23 Planning Director Darling stated that if the dredging company property developed for multiple 24 family housing they could approve less on this site, but once there is a certain density 25 classification to a property, there is an expectation by owners. She stated that if these types of 26 changes are made willy-nilly, property owners could come back and said that the City was taking 27 value away from their property. 28 29 Commissioner Huskins stated that he has a real concern about the 3 properties and referenced 30 the gentleman who spoke during the public hearing that owns the property directly to the west. 31 He stated that he owns that property and has a home on it and should have the right to continue 32 living on it. He noted that he can imagine a scenario where someone comes to the City with a 33 similar plan for the parcel further to the west that would have 6-8 units/acre which means that the 34 single family property would be surrounded. 35 36 Planning Director Darling clarified that the City owned the piece of property further to the west 37 and explained that it was purchased following the Smithtown Road study, so they would have 38 some input into the design. She stated that she did not think it was likely that the City would 39 choose to develop that property until the middle property developed. She stated that the initial 40 hope was that all 3 of these properties would go at the same time because it would provide a bit 41 more functional space for a development, but that is not what happened. 42 43 Commissioner Holker stated that she felt like the Commission could recommend denial but that 44 would put the property owner between a rock and a hard place because no matter what, it has to 45 be 6-8 units/acre density or leave it empty. She explained that she felt that the City was essentially 46 tying their hands. She stated that her gut is telling her that, because of the position the property 47 owner is in as well as the Comprehensive Plan guidance, the Commission should recommend 48 approval. 49 50 Commissioner Gorham asked if the Commission was being asked to make a recommendation. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 11 of 14 1 Planning Director Darling confirmed that they were being asked to make a recommendation on 2 the concept plan. 3 4 Commissioner Gorham suggested that the Commission take a look at the merits of this plan as 5 though it were in a vacuum. He stated that when he looks at this he sees how close things are 6 and how crammed together they are. He stated that in a vacuum the argument would have to be 7 made that there is not much housing inventory in the proposed price range and asked what the 8 merits would be there. 9 10 Commissioner Holker stated that was one of the discussions they had when they approved the 11 chocolate factory project because the price was high. She stated that they talked about what the 12 City was doing to offer housing at a different price point and that is what appears to be what is 13 being presented tonight. 14 15 Commissioner Gorham stated that price point comes with the homes being close together. 16 17 Chair Eggenberger noted that there are people interested in that kind of housing stock because 18 some people do not want to have a lawn, but would like to have their own separate dwelling. 19 20 Commissioner Johnson asked about the density of the chocolate shop development. 21 22 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed it was a 4 acre parcel that had 7 on the 23 Shorewood side and 4 on the Tonka Bay side. 24 25 Commissioner Gorham asked if the City wanted this bad enough to make this the new low side 26 setback model. He noted that at the country club, they got a lot in return for the 15 foot side 27 setback. 28 29 Commissioner Johnson asked if the Planning Commission was bound by the guidance of 6-8 30 units/acre or if they could go against it and see if the Council would agree. 31 32 Planning Director Darling stated that the Comprehensive Plan is currently 6-8 units/acre for this 33 parcel which means they are bound to that, unless the developer submits an application for 34 something different. She noted that in general, they tend to encourage people to develop the 35 property as the Comprehensive Plan indicates. 36 37 Chair Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Commissioner Holker’s thinking, but there is one 38 part of this that he does not care for which is the really small setbacks. 39 40 Commissioner Gorham stated that he would love to see this plan spaced out more which result 41 in getting rid of one of the units, but they could also come back and say that they were going to 42 do an apartment building. 43 44 Commissioner Holker stated that she would absolutely prefer there to be less density and even 45 taking it down to 6 units would make her feel much better. 46 47 The Commission discussed the differences between the chocolate shop property development 48 and this parcel, and possible ‘what if’ scenarios for this property. 49 50 Commissioner Huskins asked if the Commission could recommend approval with the stipulation 51 that they drop one more unit or if that was outside of their purview because it would need a 52 different application. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 12 of 14 1 2 Planning Director Darling stated that she would recommend that the Commission provide a 3 specific reason for dropping that unit. 4 5 Commissioner Gorham stated that he would argue for one less unit and greater side setbacks. 6 7 Commissioner Holker stated that she also felt they should consider a requirement to add some 8 guest parking as well. 9 10 Gorham moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the PUD Concept Stage 11 plans for 24560 Smithtown Road, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, and 12 the addition of conditions to: reduce the number of units to 6; and increase the side 13 setbacks to a minimum of 15 feet, where possible; and add visitor parking spaces to the 14 northeastern portion of the asphalt. 15 16 Commissioner Huskins offered a friendly amendment to the motion to drop the addition of the 17 visitor parking spaces because he was concerned about snow storage. 18 19 Commissioner Gorham noted that what comes from the Commission is just a recommendation 20 and he felt that the Council should speak to those items. 21 22 Commissioner Huskins stated that if the applicant wished to add the visitor parking, they could. 23 24 Commissioner Gorham stated that concerns had been raised about parking and people trying to 25 park on the street. 26 27 Commissioner Huskins stated that guests would have to park in the driveways or off-site. 28 29 Commissioner Gorham stated that he wanted to leave his motion as it was originally made and 30 let them look into it. 31 32 Motion passed 3/2 (Eggenberger and Huskins opposed). 33 34 Commissioner Huskins stated that the reason he voted against the motion was related to the 35 guest parking condition that was added. 36 37 Chair Eggenberger stated that his reason was that he would have voted in favor of just the staff 38 recommendations and felt that the Commission was getting into the area of designing the 39 development for the applicant. 40 41 Planning Director Darling stated that this item would come before the City Council on August 12, 42 2024. 43 44 Chair Eggenberger recessed the meeting at 8:42 p.m. and reconvened at 8:46 p.m. 45 46 5. OTHER BUSINESS – 47 48 A. Variance to rear-yard setback for garage addition (Continued from June 4, 2024) 49 Location: 22760 Galpin Lane 50 Applicant: Jeff Danberry, Danberry Properties 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 13 of 14 1 Planning Director Darling reviewed the variance request for the rear-yard setback for a garage 2 addition at 22760 Galpin Lane. She explained that they would like to demolish their existing 3 attached garage that was built too close to the property lines. She noted that it is a corner lot and 4 the rear-yard, as defined in the zoning ordinance is opposite the shortest front would be Galpin 5 Lake Boulevard and not Galpin Lane. She stated that the applicant was asking that the City 6 consider their east property line as the side lot line rather than a rear property line. She explained 7 that this lot was originally part of a subdivision that was recorded in 1924 which is also when the 8 home was constructed. She stated that staff recommended approval of the variance request 9 subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. 10 11 Commissioner Huskins asked about the current width of the driveway at the front property line. 12 13 Planning Director Darling stated that the driveway is a bit over 30 feet wide. 14 15 Jeff Danberry, 22760 Galpin Lane, stated that his plans do not encroach any further east and will 16 just attach to the house. He explained that he was also pushing the garage back further from the 17 street. He noted that he was not anticipating taking out any of his old driveway and planned to 18 just add on from the driveway to the new garage space. He stated that Galpin Lane is a private 19 street and he thinks everybody on the street has a driveway that is wider than 25 feet. He stated 20 that he felt that his plans will be more consistent with the neighborhood and will not really look 21 that different than what he has now other than being pushed back a bit and being a little bit deeper. 22 23 Commissioner Gorham stated that the garage will be getting substantially larger and asked if the 24 side setback would be decreased because of the angle. 25 26 Mr. Danberry explained that the way the garage orients to the lot line makes it still greater than 27 the 10 foot requirement. 28 29 Commissioner Gorham asked about the increase in size and explained that he has to evaluate 30 the minimum needed to alleviate the practical difficulty. 31 32 Mr. Danberry explained that he has 4 classic cars and wanted to have space for them and 33 reminded the Commission that even with the larger garage he was still under the hard cover 34 requirements. 35 36 Planning Director Darling stated that because the garage was currently non-conforming to the 40 37 foot setback, any expansion of the garage would require a variance. 38 39 Commissioner Huskins asked if Mr. Danberry was okay with the staff suggestion that he reduce 40 the width of his driveway. 41 42 Chair Eggenberger asked if Mr. Danberry understood the staff recommendation regarding the 43 reduction in the width of the driveway. 44 45 Mr. Danberry reiterated that he understood and it was fine. He noted that his current garage is 46 lower than the street, so when it rains, the water runs into the garage, so his plans are to raise it 47 up a bit higher to address that issue. 48 49 Commissioner Holker asked if there had been any feedback from the neighbors on this plan. 50 51 Mr. Danberry stated that because he was pushing back a bit further, he would be more in line with 52 the neighbor’s garage. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 2024 Page 14 of 14 1 2 3 Johnson moved, Huskins seconded, recommending approval of the request for a variance 4 to rear-yard setback for garage addition at 22760 Galpin Lane, subject to the conditions 5 outlined in the staff report. Motion passed 5/0. 6 7 6. REPORTS 8 9 • Council Meeting Report 10 11 Planning Director Darling reported on matters considered and actions taken during the recent City 12 Council meetings. 13 14 • Draft Next Meeting Agenda 15 16 Planning Director Darling stated there are 5 applications in process, but a few are still incomplete. 17 She noted there are 3 small subdivisions, 1 CUP for an AT&T antenna collocation on an existing 18 tower, and also an after-the-fact variance request. She stated that the Commission can also 19 expect a code amendment that needs to move forward regarding cannabis-related businesses on 20 their August agenda. 21 22 7. ADJOURNMENT 23 24 Holker moved, Johnson seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 25 16, 2024, at 9:09 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. 26 Applicable sections of a League of Minnesota Cities publication available at: Adult-Use Cannabis: What Cities Need to Know - League of Minnesota Cities (lmc.org)