Loading...
09 17 2024 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE GORHAM (Sep) ______ EGGENBERGER (Sep/Dec) _ _ HUSKINS () ______ HOLKER (Oct) ______ JOHNSON (Nov) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON SANSCHAGRIN(Feb-Jun) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON ZERBY (Jul-Dec)______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  August 20, 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) Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Variance for the Asakanas Addition Location: 6180 Cardinal Drive Applicant: Audrius Asakenas Tentative review at City Council: October 15, 2024 B) Minor Subdivision and Variance Location: 26275 Smithtown Road Applicant: Tony and Amy Denman Tentative review at City Council: October 15, 2024 5. OTHER BUSINESS A) Variance to Christmas Lake structure setback Location: 5840 Ridge Road Applicant: Jeffrey and Maggie Seybold Tentative review at City Council: September 23, 2024 B) Discussion on the R-3B zoning district amendments and related code changes to implement the comprehensive plan 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, AUGUST 20, 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, and Holker; and Planning 15 Director Darling 16 17 Absent: Commissioner Johnson 18 19 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20 21 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, approving the agenda for August 20, 2024, as 22 presented. Motion passed 4/0. 23 24 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25 26  July 16, 2024 27 28 Planning Director Darling noted that she was informed prior to the meeting of 5 small 29 typographical errors from the minutes on pages 3, 6, 8, and 10 which she had already corrected. 30 31 Holker moved, Huskins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 32 of July 16, 2024, as updated by Planning Director Darling. Motion passed 4/0. 33 34 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 35 36 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 37 Chair Eggenberger explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the 38 City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners 39 are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in 40 determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to 41 hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make 42 a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. 43 44 A. PUBLIC HEARING – CUP APPLICATION FOR AT&T ANTENNA 45 COLLOCATION 46 Applicant: AT&T Mobility 47 Location: 24283 Smithtown Road 48 49 Planning Director Darling outlined the request from AT&T Mobility to add nine cellular antennas 50 in a new triangular array on the existing tower along with the necessary ground equipment. She 51 reviewed some of the background/history of the tower and surrounding land uses and noted that 52 staff was recommending approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. She CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 2 of 14 1 explained that this application was a replacement of a similar application that was approved by 2 the City in 2022. 3 4 Commissioner Huskins asked if there were any significant changes from what had been 5 presented in 2022. 6 7 Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant had just made some minor changes to the 8 application. 9 10 Commissioner Huskins stated that the staff report referenced the ground equipment being placed 11 in the recent expansion of the existing fenced area and asked for details on the expansion. 12 13 Planning Director Darling explained that about the same time the Commission had been reviewing 14 the AT&T antenna collocation in 2022, there was a separate application from T-Mobile and also 15 a dish provider for more equipment. She stated that they both went up and had increased the 16 size of the fenced area in order to accommodate all of the antennas. 17 18 Commissioner Huskins asked why the applicant would be responsible for tree removal outside of 19 the fenced area. 20 21 Planning Director Darling explained that the trees were on the subject property and the conditions 22 require that the dead trees are removed and that the applicant do some minor site clean-up before 23 they plant new trees that are required for screening. 24 25 Chair Eggenberger asked how long an applicant to act after it is approved and whether they notify 26 the City when they are done with the work. 27 28 Planning Director Darling explained that she reviews their building permits and noted that in this 29 case, the building permit had also expired, so when the new application came in, she flagged it 30 as needing a revised CUP application. 31 32 Chair Eggenberger asked if the applicant decided not to go ahead with what had been approved 33 whether they would be required to notify the City. 34 35 Planning Director Darling stated that there was not a notification requirement for that scenario. 36 37 Jason Hall, 7365 Kirkwood Court N, Maple Grove, explained that he represented AT&T Mobility 38 and had been working through this with staff and noted that they have no issues with the 39 conditions that have been proposed and were eager to get started on this project this fall. 40 41 Chair Eggenberger asked why AT&T had not gone ahead with this project following the earlier 42 approval from the City. 43 44 Mr. Hall explained that it ended up being a budgetary issue. 45 46 Commissioner Huskins asked if there would be any disruption to service of the existing antennas. 47 48 Mr. Hall stated that there would not be any disruptions in service. 49 50 Planning Director Darling pointed out that the antennas would be going in at 115 feet which would 51 make them the lowest antennas on the tower. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 3 of 14 1 Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public 2 Hearing. There being no one present wishing to comment, he closed the Public Hearing. 3 4 Holker moved, Gorham seconded, recommending approval of the CUP application for 5 AT&T antenna collocation for AT&T Mobility located at 24283 Smithtown Road, subject to 6 the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion passed 4/0. 7 8 Planning Director Darling stated that this item would go before the City Council on August 26, 9 2024. 10 11 B. PUBLIC HEARING – CANNABIS RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING 12 REGULATIONS 13 Applicant: City of Shorewood 14 Location: City-wide 15 16 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the necessary amendments to the City’s zoning 17 regulations in relation to the new State law that will issue licenses to cannabis-related businesses. 18 She explained that the City would not be able to prohibit cannabis businesses from operating 19 within the City. She noted that most of the licenses from the State would not be issued until 2025 20 but they are allowing some producers to apply for licenses prior to that so the City needed to have 21 their regulations in place before those licenses are issued. She reviewed that the restrictions that 22 would be allowed per the State statute and noted that staff had looked at including them as 23 conditional uses under the C-1 zoning district. She explained that when these restrictions were 24 placed on the City’s C-1 properties, there were only three parcels that would qualify for this type 25 of business which are located at the intersection of Vine Hill Road and the frontage road for 26 Highway 7. She noted that the businesses that currently occupy these properties are Starbuck’s, 27 a pizza restaurant and a mini-storage facility. Staff recommend approval of the ordinance 28 amendments as outlined. 29 30 Chair Eggenberger asked if the City Council had already discussed these at one of their work 31 sessions in July. 32 33 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and explained that the Council had given staff 34 direction on how to craft the ordinances and what would be needed if the City were to also register 35 the businesses in the City. She stated that the draft ordinance being presented to the Commission 36 looks a bit different because what had originally been sent to the Council was allowing these as 37 a permitted use because they had the restrictions in the registration regulations rather than the 38 zoning code. She gave a brief overview of the ordinance and the proposed amendments. 39 40 Commissioner Gorham stated that this would be an amendment to C-1 and asked for an 41 explanation of why it would not be C-2. 42 43 Planning Director Darling stated that she had not proposed the C-2 zoning district because there 44 were only three parcels in the City that are zoned C-2 and all are guided in the Comprehensive 45 Plan for high-density residential uses and would end up being rezoned to something else. She 46 explained that meant that there would actually not be any properties zoned C-2 in the City. 47 48 Commissioner Gorham gave the example of Cub Foods' development. 49 50 Planning Director Darling stated that the Cub Foods site is zoned C-1, it has a Planned Unit 51 Development, but was within 1,000 feet of Minnetonka Middle School. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 4 of 14 1 Commissioner Holker referenced Section 3, Subd. 4 (2) and asked if that meant that if something 2 like a park goes in if that meant that the cannabis business would have to vacate. 3 4 Planning Director Darling clarified that the statement means that the cannabis business would 5 have to be allowed to stay. 6 7 Commissioner Gorham stated that with the example of the C-1 properties referenced by Planning 8 Director Darling, if the storage unit ended up vacant whether that meant the cannabis shop could 9 then occupy as much of the square feet as they wanted to. 10 11 Planning Director Darling stated that she would assume that cannabis would have more success 12 if they moved into the two other commercial businesses than they would in the mini-storage facility 13 because those buildings were designed not designed for retail uses but because the mini-storage 14 facility was built for storage, there could be a cannabis warehouse or storage that moved into that 15 building. 16 17 Commissioner Gorham gave a scenario where the cannabis business bought the property and 18 bulldozed the storage facility if they could build as large of a cannabis retail space that they wanted 19 do or if there were restrictions on size. 20 21 Planning Director Darling stated that they would have to meet the appropriate district setbacks 22 and other rules, but they could build a building for a cannabis business. 23 24 Commissioner Gorham asked if there was any limit on the size of the retail space or if they could 25 essentially build a ‘cannabis superstore’ in that location. 26 27 Planning Director Darling stated that there may be something that exists within the licensing rules 28 for how large the facility can be, but the City would not be able to limit the size. 29 30 Commissioner Huskins asked about the prohibition of being located within the buffer area of 31 schools and daycares and asked if the City could add any other prohibitions to what has been 32 outlined by the State. He explained that he was thinking about things like a church, a residential 33 area, or a nursing home. 34 35 Planning Director Darling explained that the distance prohibition does not allow for churches, but 36 does allow for daycares, residential treatment centers, and parks and clarified that this is what 37 the State allows the City to buffer from and cannot allow additional restrictions. 38 39 Commissioner Huskins stated that in Excelsior there are a few locations where one can purchase 40 product that is a derivative of cannabis which are CBD or THC and asked if this related to those 41 types of products. 42 43 Planning Director Darling stated that it did not relate to those types of products and explained that 44 those are considered low potency products and the City had previously elected not to regulate 45 the low dosage THC products. 46 47 Commissioner Huskins asked if someone wished to enter into that type of business in the City if 48 there was existing code that would also spell out the appropriate locations in the City. 49 50 Planning Director Darling stated that there was no existing code for low-dose THC products 51 because they those products are not regulated by the city. For example, there are chiropractors 52 and medical buildings that are allowed to sell CBD creams and products for humans and believes CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 5 of 14 1 that there were also some products that could be sold at vet clinics as well. She stated that she 2 also believed there are some low dosage THC products and beverages that are sold in liquor 3 stores and smoke shops and could also be served at the City’s restaurants that have liquor 4 licenses. 5 6 Commissioner Huskins asked if there were any likely locations just outside of the City boundaries 7 in the same area as the C-1 products highlighted by staff or if the City did not know what the 8 surrounding communities would do. 9 10 Planning Director Darling stated that she knows that Minnetonka had put a moratorium in place 11 so they had time to study this in more depth and believes that they will end up having some of the 12 same restrictions as Shorewood. She stated that she would not be surprised if there would be 13 some retail locations allowed at 101 and Highway 7 because they have very large commercial 14 districts, but Minnetonka also has industrial districts where some of these uses could perhaps fit 15 in better. She stated that several of the adjacent communities are also looking into this and noted 16 that Mound adopted their standards in July. 17 18 Commissioner Huskins explained that what motivated his question was the condition related to 19 the location of similar businesses. He asked if Minnetonka put one in and whether that could be 20 construed as another restriction and explained that he did not know if someone was champing at 21 the bit to start this kind of business in Shorewood. He stated that give the footprint of the City, it 22 is very limiting where these businesses can locate and thought it may be perceived by others as 23 the City’s way of getting around the requirement from the State. 24 25 Planning Director Darling stated that she had looked at other communities when looking at the 26 proposed buffer areas which was how she determined that the Cub Foods location was too close 27 to the middle school. She explained that she believed the high school was just over 1,000 feet 28 from these locations. 29 30 Commissioner Gorham stated that he thought the high school was about .7 miles away and 31 explained that he was not crazy about high school kids being at Starbucks and the possibility that 32 there would also be a cannabis retailer there as well. He stated that he had also taken a look at 33 what other cities were doing and saw that some of the bigger cities were restricting signage and 34 asked if the City could also do that. 35 36 Planning Director Darling stated that the City can also restrict signage and explained that was 37 one of the things that she had elected not to propose just so there were not two separate 38 standards. She stated that the way it was currently proposed the businesses would be subject to 39 the City’s regular signage restrictions. 40 41 Commissioner Gorham stated that he had seen restrictions that called out that there be no 42 cannabis-related imagery. 43 44 Planning Director Darling asked Commissioner Gorham to let her know where he had seen that 45 restriction and explained that she was concerned about content regulation. 46 47 Commissioner Gorham stated that he had looked at Maple Grove, Bloomington, St. Paul, and 48 Minneapolis and noted that he thinks that a few of them had restrictions on signage, particularly 49 against the image of a cannabis leaf. 50 51 Planning Director Darling reiterated that she would be very concerned about regulating content, 52 but noted that she would contact the City Attorney about this and look into it more closely. She CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 6 of 14 1 stated that the handout that the City received from the State said that they are able to limit them 2 to 2 signs instead of 3 signs as allowed by the city, but it did not suggest any limitations on the 3 content. 4 5 Commissioner Gorham shared details from the research he had done for Maple Grove and what 6 restrictions they had included. 7 8 Planning Director Darling read aloud the language that they had received from the State that said, 9 ‘cannabis businesses are permitted to erect up to 2 fixed signs on the exterior of the building or 10 property of the business unless otherwise limited by the city sign ordinances’. She reiterated that 11 this does not talk about limiting content and the City had just fixed that within their code and 12 reiterated that she would talk to the City Attorney about it. 13 14 There was consensus of the Commission to explore other possible sign limitations with 15 the City Attorney. 16 17 Commissioner Gorham asked for more information on why the Council did not want to enact a 18 moratorium. He stated that he would also like to know what role Hennepin County would play in 19 all of this too and if they would be managing the licensing. 20 21 Planning Director Darling stated that the County would not be doing any of the licensing because 22 that will be handled by the State Office of Cannabis Management. She stated that the City or the 23 County, on the City’s behalf, can register the users and would be handling the inspections. She 24 noted that this type of inspection is more involved that the inspections that the City would normally 25 do. She stated that the State will get the licensing fee and whoever the registering body is would 26 get separate registration fee and would also get a portion of the licensing fees in order to help 27 cover the cost of inspections. 28 29 Commissioner Gorham gave the example of the City receiving an abundance of applicants on 30 Day 1 and how a determination would be made because there would only be 1 available spot in 31 the City for this license. 32 33 Planning Director Darling explained that the State will determine who gets the license, so the City 34 would not have any input but noted that the State would send the licenses to the City to verify the 35 zoning requirements. 36 37 Commissioner Gorham asked if it would end up being an RFP-type situation where they do a call 38 for interest, then screen them, and then give the City the best candidate. 39 40 Planning Director Darling stated that they would go through all of their applicants and for those 41 within the City, they would send those over to the City to review for zoning compliance and at that 42 point the City would either sign off on them or not sign off on them depending on the details of the 43 locations proposed. 44 45 Commissioner Holker asked if the County had an inspection department already and asked if the 46 City could contract with them to handle these inspections. 47 48 Planning Director Darling explained that the County was still working on its regulations, but that 49 was what the City was looking into pursuing. She noted that many of the smaller communities 50 were looking to the County to provide those inspections and stated that it is the same as what is 51 done with health inspections. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 7 of 14 1 Commissioner Gorham reiterated his question about the Council’s preference not to enact a 2 moratorium. 3 4 Planning Director Darling explained that because the City was looking at working with the County 5 for the registrations, they would prefer that we have whatever enabling legislation in place before 6 December and felt it was unnecessary to enact the moratorium because the licenses will not be 7 issued before the end of August for the zoning amendments, or before the end of December for 8 the registration of the businesses. 9 10 Chair Eggenberger asked if the City can tax cannabis sales. 11 12 Planning Director Darling stated that they cannot, but there could be a municipal pot shop. 13 14 Commissioner Gorham asked if the City would require CCTVs. 15 16 Planning Director Darling stated that they could not because that would be under the licensing 17 regulations for security, so the State would be reviewing their setup. 18 19 Commissioner Gorham asked what the City had in place to enforce public smoking of cannabis 20 and noted that he assumed that they would not be able to smoke it in parks. 21 22 Planning Director Darling stated that the City does not have a prohibition on having gummies, 23 smoking cannabis, or smoking in the parks. 24 25 Chair Eggenberger asked if there was a limitation such as a certain amount of feet from a school. 26 27 Planning Director Darling stated that the City did not have those types of regulations. 28 29 Chair Eggenberger asked if the City had regulations related to alcohol within a certain distance 30 from schools. 31 32 Planning Director Darling stated that there are not regulations that outlines a certain distance from 33 a school, but they do have some regulations. She stated that she believes that alcohol in parks 34 is extremely limited and thought that Badger Park was the only place the City has allowed some 35 alcohol. 36 37 Commissioner Huskins stated that he believed that was allowed by permit for a special event. 38 39 Planning Director Darling read aloud from Section 902 which outlined the regulations related to 40 alcohol and the City parks. 41 42 Commissioner Gorham stated that he was concerned about people leaving the building and 43 smoking cannabis products with high school kids being at a nearby building. 44 45 Planning Director Darling stated that there was not anything in the City’s code that would prohibit 46 someone from smoking their cannabis when they leave the building and driving down the road in 47 their car because it is all handled by State statute for driving while impaired or intoxicated. She 48 noted that the City does prohibit using or bringing illegal drugs into the park, but reminded the 49 Commission that cannabis would not be illegal. 50 51 Commissioner Gorham asked if it could be added to the language. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 8 of 14 1 Planning Director Darling stated that they could add some language and the Commission could 2 make that recommendation to the Council. 3 4 Commissioner Gorham asked the Commission how they felt about the possibility of restricting 5 cannabis use in City parks and property. He asked if smoking cigarettes was allowed in City parks. 6 7 Planning Director Darling confirmed that you can smoke cigarettes in the City parks. 8 9 Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt that would limit the City’s ability to restrict smoking 10 cannabis in the parks. 11 12 Commissioner Gorham argued that if the City would limit the use of alcohol in City parks he 13 questioned why they wouldn’t also limit the use of cannabis in the parks because it is also a 14 controlled substance. 15 16 Commissioner Holker asked if any other cities had that kind of limitation. 17 18 Planning Director Darling stated that some other cities have that restriction for their parks. 19 20 Commissioner Gorham stated that the City would be restricting the sale of it within 1,000 feet of 21 a park he would think that limiting the use of it in the park would also make sense. 22 23 Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt this was a good recommendation to make to the Council 24 for their consideration. 25 26 There was consensus of the Commission to recommend that the Council consider putting 27 a restriction on smoking cannabis products in the City parks. 28 29 Chair Eggenberger referenced Section 3, Subd. 4, 1, (3), (c), and asked what the difference was 30 between a micro-business and a mezzo-business. 31 32 Planning Director Darling read aloud the official definition of a micro-business and a mezzo- 33 business. 34 35 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt it made more sense for the cannabis retailer to be at 36 the Cub development or in the health center, but didn’t really want it close to the middle school 37 kids. 38 39 Chair Eggenberger stated that he did not think they had a choice because the State statute says 40 that it cannot be within 1,000 feet of the school. 41 42 Planning Director Darling clarified that the City cannot have the distance requirement be more 43 than 1,000 feet, but they could choose to go less than that distance. She noted that a reduction 44 in the distance requirements would mean that there would be more properties eligible for this type 45 of business. 46 47 Commissioner Gorham stated that they could still just limit it to one location. 48 49 Planning Director Darling clarified that they could limit it to one retail location, but the rest could 50 have more, such as cultivators, manufacturers, processes, labs, and distribution businesses 51 which are unlimited. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 9 of 14 1 Chair Eggenberger asked if the City may want to consider reducing the size of the buffer. 2 3 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that the only benefit would be that it would have the 4 potential to be further away from the high school. 5 6 Commissioner Holker asked about the Cub Foods location and asked if they tightened this down 7 if that was the only other location that would come into play. 8 9 Planning Director Darling explained that she would have to go through the entire map again and 10 do calculations. 11 12 Commissioner Huskins asked if the City could have different distance restrictions from these 13 businesses and parks and schools. 14 15 Planning Director Darling stated that they could have different distance restrictions. 16 17 Chair Eggenberger asked Commission Gorham if his idea to reduce the distances was essentially 18 to force the location to be more likely to go in at Cub Foods. 19 20 Commissioner Gorham stated that with his idea it would just not exclude the Cub Foods location 21 and noted that it would not guarantee that is where a cannabis business would locate there. He 22 explained that it may still end up on one of the 3 parcels outlined by staff. He stated that he felt 23 like the targeted audience for this product may end up being high schoolers but he also did not 24 want cannabis businesses near the parks either. 25 26 Commissioner Huskins asked about the extent of the business and whether such businesses will 27 be allowed to sell other products or services, for example, toilet paper or soft drinks. 28 29 Planning Director Darling stated that another question to ask is whether they could add this to a 30 tobacco store but noted that she did not have that information. She noted that insurance for 31 cannabis-related businesses is complicated and explained that they are usually cash businesses 32 because it is still an illegal product at the Federal level. She stated that for these reasons, she 33 felt it may be challenging to run a business that was not specific to cannabis. 34 35 Commissioner Huskins explained that his thought was that these businesses would want to attract 36 customers in any way they can by selling other products like newspapers or magazines. He 37 asked if this business model would allow for something like DoorDash or some other delivery 38 service. 39 40 Planning Director Darling stated that the cannabis products can be delivered from the business 41 to someone’s home. 42 43 Chair Eggenberger asked if liquor businesses have delivery services. 44 45 Planning Director Darling confirmed that there are some liquor businesses that offer delivery. 46 47 Commissioner Huskins asked if the City could restrict these businesses to having on-site-only 48 sales. 49 50 Planning Director Darling answered that they could not have that restriction. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 10 of 14 1 Commissioner Huskins stated the ordinance basically boils down to approving a location for such 2 a business, but the business model that is used for vending their product would be up to the 3 business. 4 5 Chair Eggenberger questioned whether the State knew exactly what the business model would 6 look like. 7 8 Planning Director Darling stated that the State has a model ordinance that they have put together 9 for communities if the City wanted to register the businesses themselves. 10 11 Commissioner Gorham stated that at the end of the day, he still cannot believe that the City would 12 drive these businesses to the locations right next to the high school. 13 14 Chair Eggenberger stated that the one good thing about the proposed location is that it is really 15 public and not tucked away in a corner somewhere. 16 17 Planning Director Darling stated that something that may be helpful for the Commission to know 18 is that you cannot sell or gift to people under 21 years of age, nor can you advertise or appeal to 19 that market. She stated that the adult-use cannabis law is specifically for 21 years and older so 20 the businesses would not be attracting a lot of high school kids. 21 22 Chair Eggenberger asked if someone under 21 could enter the store. 23 24 Planning Director Darling explained that she did not have that level of detail in her information. 25 26 Commissioner Gorham gave the example of being the parent of a student at the Minnetonka High 27 School who drives past the cannabis retailer in the City every day and noted that he would assume 28 that they would be pretty upset about it, especially if their kid goes to Starbuck’s every day. He 29 stated that he would imagine that they would ask why the only location Shorewood found for this 30 business was located right next to the high school. He stated that he would also be pretty upset 31 about it if he was the principal at the high school. 32 33 Commissioner Huskins stated that in order for a cannabis business to locate here, one of the 34 existing businesses would need to decide to leave and make the property available. 35 36 Commissioner Gorham stated that, to him, this just seemed like a bad idea. He stated that he 37 knows that the City cannot restrict these businesses coming to the City but to focus them on one 38 site like this seems like it would be second guessed by people. 39 40 Commissioner Huskins stated that the Cub Foods site is within 1,000 of the middle school, but 41 asked about the exact distance and suggested that the City could pick a different distance. 42 43 Chair Eggenberger stated that even if the City opened up a spot in the Cub Foods area it would 44 not guarantee that the cannabis business would actually choose that spot. 45 46 Commissioner Gorham noted that there are vacancies in the Cub Foods location. 47 48 Commissioner Holker noted that the Cub Foods strip mall would be an easy place to someone to 49 move into relatively quickly. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 11 of 14 1 Commissioner Huskins stated that they could not guarantee this location even if they opened it 2 up as an option, but if they didn’t open it up as an option, then the businesses will have to go in 3 the location near the high school. 4 5 Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to know more about the toggle of linear feet to 6 schools and parks in order to open up the possibility for the cannabis businesses to end up at 7 Cub area or the health center. 8 9 Chair Eggenberger asked if this item needed to go to the City Council on August 26, 2024. 10 11 Planning Director Darling stated that it does need to go before the Council on August 26, 2024 12 because of the early licensing that is allowed. 13 14 Commissioner Gorham stated that he hopes people understand his concern about possibly 15 creating a legacy of putting a cannabis store right next to the high school. He asked if the City 16 could say that it would be 1,000 feet from a park and a lesser distance from a school. 17 18 Planning Director Darling stated that they could set different distances for schools and parks. 19 She stated that she was looking at the Hennepin County map and explained that the middle school 20 actually appeared on both the Hennepin County and Carver County maps. 21 22 Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to know how the City could make the Cub area 23 and the health center area eligible for cannabis business locations without totally messing up 24 every other protected parcel in the City. 25 26 Chair Eggenberger stated that he thinks they need to find out how far the middle school is from 27 Cub Foods. 28 29 Commissioner Gorham asked if staff could determine how far away the middle school was from 30 Cub Foods. 31 32 Chair Eggenberger suggested that while Planning Director Darling was checking on that they go 33 ahead and open up the Public Hearing. He opened the Public Hearing at 8:13 P.M. noting the 34 procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no one who requested to comment he closed 35 the Public Hearing at 8:14 P.M. 36 37 Planning Director Darling stated that her information shows the middle school at around 1,500 38 feet from Cub Foods and explained that it appeared that the Cub Foods property would qualify 39 for a cannabis business. 40 41 Chair Eggenberger stated that means that there were 2 locations where the cannabis businesses 42 could go, the Cub Foods strip mall, or the area that has the Starbucks, that Planning Director 43 Darling had already outlined for the Commission. 44 45 Commissioner Gorham asked if they could also be at the dentist's if they called it a health use. 46 47 Planning Director Darling explained that the dentist was not zoned C-1 because it was a PUD. 48 She noted that she would plan to remeasure everything again to make sure it is accurate. 49 50 Commissioner Gorham asked how they would be able to close the loop with that information. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 12 of 14 1 Planning Director Darling stated that if the Commission’s concern was that they were steering the 2 cannabis businesses too close to the high school which may encourage those students to 3 somehow purchase those products as part of a secondary sale, then they can make a 4 recommendation for staff to look at options for reducing the buffer requirement from schools to 5 allow more properties to qualify to reduce the likelihood that they would locate in these particular 6 businesses. 7 8 Commissioner Huskins stated that this preference would be to keep the buffer distance at 1,000 9 from schools. 10 11 Commissioner Gorham stated that he agreed. 12 13 Gorham moved, Huskins seconded, recommending approval of the Ordinance 607, “An 14 Ordinance of the City of Shorewood to Amend the C-1 (General Commercial) District and 15 Related Amendments to Regulate Cannabis Businesses”, with the additional 16 recommendations to restrict content signage, if possible, restrict usage within City parks, 17 and direct staff to review proximity in order to allow the Cub Foods development to qualify 18 as a possible location for a cannabis business, so the City does not direct young adults 19 towards a cannabis retailer near the high school. Motion passed 4/0. 20 21 Commissioner Huskins pointed out some typographical errors within the staff report. 22 23 Planning Director Darling reiterated that she would go back over all her measurements to make 24 sure she hadn’t missed anything. 25 26 5. OTHER BUSINESS 27 28 A. Discuss Amendments to R-3B Zoning District and Related Improvements 29 Location: City-wide 30 Applicant: City of Shorewood 31 32 Planning Director Darling explained that staff has been working on incorporating the most recent 33 input from the Commission and gave a brief overview of their recommendations. She explained 34 that she had also added an amendment to the impervious surface regulations in order to allow 35 greater amounts of coverage in this district. She noted that she had included photo examples in 36 the staff report that depicted setbacks throughout the metro area and had also shown those 37 setbacks on the three parcels in the City that would likely be rezoned to R-3B. 38 39 Commissioner Huskins asked what the maximum impervious surface that would be allowed. 40 41 Planning Director Darling stated that what she wrote up in the staff report was 66% for impervious 42 surface coverage. 43 44 Commissioner Huskins asked about the examples that were greater than 66% and if they would 45 need a variance. 46 47 Planning Director Darling stated that the example that exceeded 66% was from Tonka Bay which 48 in Shorewood, would have needed a variance or a PUD to achieve that level of impervious surface 49 coverage. 50 51 Chair Eggenberger noted that something had to give because these lots are relatively small and 52 if they are going to put something like a high-rise on it, it would still need parking. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 13 of 14 1 2 Commissioner Huskins stated that they would still have to consider where the water goes. 3 4 Chair Eggenberger agreed but the applicant will have to have plans to address the water. 5 6 Commissioner Huskins asked if the water management plans were something that was included 7 in the building permit process. 8 9 Planning Director Darling explained that they usually have some element shown on the plans that 10 the Commission reviews, but may not be the exact final size or design of the stormwater feature. 11 She referenced the concept PUD that the Commission had considered at their recent meeting 12 which had 2 basins and an underground vault shown on their plans and noted that the recent 13 marine sales application had also proposed an underground vault. 14 15 Chair Eggenberger stated that he felt that in some cases the underground management system 16 would be better than just having open basins. 17 18 Planning Director Darling noted that she wasn’t sure that she would say ‘better’, but explained 19 that you have to account for the increased amount of hard surface on every property. She stated 20 that this a City requirement but also a watershed requirement and projects have to have rate and 21 volume control and treatment. She stated that the City does have some underground vaults in 22 the City and gave the example of one being under the parking lot at Cub Foods. 23 24 Commissioner Huskins stated that once the City has this district defined, he felt that for every 25 application that comes forward the Commission will be very dependent on the report that staff 26 gives them about the impervious surface and the water management plans because no one on 27 the Commission were water experts. 28 29 Planning Director Darling stated that they are looking at impervious surface coverage in relation 30 to the stormwater on every site that comes forward for consideration. She stated that if the 31 Commission was uncomfortable with the CUP to increase the amount of impervious surface, they 32 could also cut it off at 66% and if someone wanted to go higher than that they would need a 33 variance which is a bit harder standard to meet than a CUP. She explained that the onus would 34 be on the applicant to show why it would work if a variance was granted, rather than on the City 35 to prove why it would not work. 36 37 Chair Eggenberger stated that he liked that idea. 38 39 Commissioner Huskins stated that he was not trying to put boulders in front of builders, but felt 40 this was important and believed that the City would be well served by placing that burden onto 41 the builder. 42 43 Planning Director Darling noted that her copy of the staff report did not have the ordinance 44 attached and asked if the Commission had received that portion of the packet. 45 46 The Commission stated that they had not received the proposed ordinance. 47 48 Planning Director Darling apologized that this was left out of the packet and stated that she would 49 make sure that it was attached for the next meeting. She suggested that the Commission take 50 another look at this in September and then plan to schedule the public hearing in October. 51 52 6. REPORTS CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 14 of 14 1 2 • Council Meeting Report 3 4 Planning Director Darling explained that Councilmember Zerby was ill tonight, so she would give 5 the Council meeting update. She reported on matters considered and actions taken during the 6 Council’s recent meetings and answered Commission questions related to the discussion that 7 took place among the Council. 8 9 Planning Director Darling stated that the City had received 18 applications for the Planner position 10 and interviews have been conducted with 6 of those individuals. 11 12 Commissioner Huskins stated that he had been reading various things on-line that say that 13 Shorewood’s codes are difficult for the average person to read and understand. He noted that he 14 understands that there was a legal element to the code but asked if the City should elevate 15 simplicity in the language. 16 17 Planning Director Darling stated that she would like to improve the language, but she cannot 18 guarantee that everyone will want to pick up the code book and read it. She stated that there are 19 some complicated topics that have to be covered and gave the example of the sign code which 20 has complicated regulations. 21 22 Commissioner Holker asked if she was still scheduled to report to the Council on September 9, 23 2024, and noted that she believed that things had perhaps gotten moved around. She explained 24 that she will not be in town for the Council’s August 26, 2024 meeting. 25 26 Planning Director Darling stated that both of the agenda items needed to have a quick turn around 27 time and suggested that perhaps someone else could step in and present on August 26, 2024. 28 29 Commissioner Huskins volunteered to make the presentation on August 26, 2024. 30 31 Upcoming Planning Commission Presentations to the Council: 32 33  August – Commissioner Huskins 34  September – Commissioner Gorham 35  October – Commissioner Holker 36  November – Commissioner Johnson 37  December – Chair Eggenberger 38 39 • Draft Next Meeting Agenda 40 41 Planning Director Darling stated that at the next meeting, they would consider the ordinance for 42 R-3B as a discussion item, an after-the-fact variance for a shed at the shoreline of Christmas 43 Lake, and two subdivisions. 44 45 7. ADJOURNMENT 46 47 Gorham moved, Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 48 20, 2024, at 9:08 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. 49 MEMORANDUM Date:August 17, 2024 To:Marie Darling, Planning Director From:Andrew Budde, PE nd Subject:6180 Cardinal Drive-2Review City of Shorewood The following Local Surface Water Management Planand Engineering Standards: RevisedCivil Plans prepared by Demarc Land Surveying & Engineering;revisedAugust 21, 2024. SWMP prepared by Demarc Land Surveying & Engineering: revised August 21, 2024. Revised Prelim & Final Plat prepared by Demarc Land Surveying & Engineering: revised 8/21/2024. Landscape Plan & Tree Inventory prepared by Demarc Land Surveying & Engineering: dated 8/21/2024. We offer the following comments for your consideration: 1.A drainage & utility easement should be provided over the swale on Lot 1since it conveys water from multiplelots. 2.Consider piping overflow water from Infiltration Basin B & C to Basin A to avoid long term erosion & maintenance issues. 3.Consider adjusting the location EOF of Infiltration Basin C to direct water to the swale routed to Infiltration Basin A. This will route water away from Cardinal Drive andhelp reduce drainage issues in that area. 4.The phasing of drainage and home construction should be considered. For example, will a building permit for any of the three lots trigger the construction and stabilization of the drainage swale routed to Infiltration Basin Aor will a development agreement be required for the swale and sanitary sewer to be constructedprior to any home building permits being issued. 5.Roof gutter and other impervious surfaces should be routed to proposed infiltration basins. 6.The applicant must submit a Maintenance Agreement for any private stormwater management structures and facilities used to meet regulatory requirements. This can be provided with building permit applications. 7.Add concrete curb & gutter onthe west side of CardinalDrive whereLot 1 abuts the right of way. Terminate curb near the existing 12culvert under Cardinal Drive and ensure positive ditch flow towards the wetland. 8.Future access & maintenance to sanitary manholes between MH 1 & MH 3 is challenging due to surrounding topographyand tree cover as shown. Locate MH 2 & MH 3 approximately 80-100 feet further south to allow flatter gradesbetter maintenance access, and less tree loss for the development. 9.MH 2 has a depth of 25 feet. Typical easement width is two times the sewer depth. Because this line will only provide sewer service to two homes, consider increasing the pipe grade to minimize (Ȁ͐3(7$͐ΑΓ8ΐΒΔΕΐΐΏΏΏ͐ΐ͑#®±±¤²͐#͑4® /³§¤±²͐Α­£ 2¤µ¨¤¶ ,¤³³¤±͐Α­£ 0« ­ 2¤µ¨¤¶ȃΕΐΗΏ # ±£¨­ « $±¨µ¤ȁ£®¢· Name:6180 Cardinal Drive Date:August 28, 2024 Page:2 sewer depth. If over 20% grade, the sewer should be anchored every 36 feet to reduce the likelihood of pipe joints separating over time. Provide drainage & utility easement over this line. 10.Provide a profile of the sanitary sewer for review prior to final plat approval. 11.Havethesanitary sewer service of Lot 3 tie perpendicularly into proposed mainline pipe. 12.Trees in the center of the lot were not individually identified but will likely be impacted by the construction of the currently proposed sanitary sewer, improvements associated with Lot 1, and drainage swales. 13.Standard City Details should be included with the Final Plans. MEMORANDUM Date:August 9, 2024 To:Marie Darling, Planning Director From:Andrew Budde, PE Subject:26275 Smithtown Road City of Shorewood The following documents were submitted for review of compliance with the City of Local Surface Water Management Planand Engineering Standards: Preliminary Plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc dated May17, 2024. Wetland Review Memo 26275 Smithtown Rd dated July 17, 2024 This review only included the documents listed above, primarily dealing with parcel boundaries, grading, utilitiesand stormwater management. 1.A new sanitary sewer service wouldneed to be tapped into theadjacent 10-inchPVC main which will likely includeexcavation into the street. Thesewer main invert is approximately945.5. 2.A new water service would need to be tapped in to the adjacent 16-inchDIP watermainwhich is generally located under thesidewalk. 3.A stream tributary was identified on this property as part of the work performed for the Smithtown Pond improvements, and the proposed lot split would require a crossing of this stream to access the buildable area for Parcel B. The following should be considered regarding this crossing: a.The final location and size of the culvert will affect the Drainage and Utility Easement required to cover it. It appears the preliminary plan would be to install a culvert outside the existing easement. Additional D&UE should be provided to cover the current location of the streamOHWLor 100-yr HWL (whichever is greater),orconsideration should be given to revising the easement size and location with the lot split. b.Permitting of the stream crossing will be required by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). This permitting may result in changes to the potential crossing size and location. The D&U Easement provided should accommodate any potential permit requirements. 4.It appears that stormwater management could be provided for Parcel B that meets City impervious surface. Final Site Plans for Parcel B would need to include calculationsfor stormwater runoff managementand meet the requirementsof Shorewood SWMP Section 5.3. 5.Verify that there is at least 3.0 feet of separation from the bottom of the infiltration basin to the groundwater elevation. 6.Grade the property such that runoff rates to neighboring properties will not be increased from existing conditions. (Ȁ͐3(7$͐ΑΓ8ΐΒΔΕΐΏΏΏΏ͐ΐ͑#®±±¤²͐#͑4® /³§¤±²͐0« ­ 2¤µ¨¤¶ȃΑΕΑΖΔ 3¬¨³§³®¶­ 2® £ȁ£®¢· Name:26275 Smithtown Road Date:August 9, 2024 Page:2 7.Owners of private stormwater facilities shall enter into an agreement with the City describing responsibility for the long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities and shall be executed and recorded with the final plat/prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. An operations and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater system should be included with future submittals. 8.A permit will be required with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Erosion and Sediment Control. 1 September 9, 2024 To: Marie Darling, Planning Director; Planning Commission Members, City Sta?, City Council Members From: Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, Shorewood, MN 55331 Subject: Testimony Re: Minor Subdivision and variance at 26275 Smithtown Road Please include this testimony in the materials for City consideration of this matter My property lies immediately to the South of the proposed subdivision. I oppose any subdivision and variance of the subject property based upon the following facts: 1) Virtually all local basements use sump pumps and the water table in the area is very high and has become higher, not lower, since the Smithtown Ponds Project. I can dig down 4 feet in my backyard and hit groundwater. The removal of almost 1,000 massive groundwater absorbing trees and plants at Smithtown Ponds has harmed our hydrology, ecology and wildlife. The proposed project removes many water absorbing trees and habitat, the construction foundation, major new below ground utilities and trenches and significant additional impermeable surfaces further exacerbate our issues. With the recent desecration of a 5 acre water absorbing ecologically beneficial habitat, any further destruction and disruption of the natural ecosystem is not supported by science, the City’s tree preservation ordinance or the wellbeing of my property and my neighbors. 2) Anyone considering this proposal needs to visit the property and walk it. Clearly the proposed driveway will be an eyesore, will require the removal (or damage the root systems) of many mature trees, some spectacular and not Ash. But more importantly, the Pebble Creek watershed and wetland will be severely impacted by the proposed project. The land for the driveway for example, and the land for the house, are part of the creek bed, tilting toward the creek and feeding the creek. The introduction of massive new below ground infrastructure to support the proposal will cause further damage and disruption to the water table and ecosystem. City engineering has already seriously damaged natural Pebble Creek flow toward the lower Lake Minnesota watershed. The natural Freeman Park creek flow to the east of Smithtown Ponds had been virtually starved of water due to the failure of the manufactured ponds to ensure its flow. This is a violation of the Army Corp. of Engineers, State DNR law and MCWD rules. The City should not continue on its path to damaging further the 2 creeks essential to the health of the lower Lake Minnetonka watershed and wetlands, or interrupt the public enjoyment of Smithtown Ponds. 2 3) The forced squeezing of the proposed home and driveway into a property clearly unsuitable for development is unwarranted, unnecessary, harmful and unwanted by neighbors. I urge the Planning Commission to not approve any driveway or home on or near the a?ected property for the reasons stated above. Sincerely, Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle,