Loading...
11 19 24 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE GORHAM () ______ EGGENBERGER (Dec) _ _ HUSKINS () absent HOLKER () ______ JOHNSON (Nov) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON SANSCHAGRIN(Feb-Jun) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON ZERBY (Jul-Dec)______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 1, 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) Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Apartment Location: 19660 Sweetwater Curve Applicant: Peter & Jane Anne Hill Tentative review at City Council: November 25, 2024 B) Rezoning 3 Parcels from the C-2 district to the R-3B district Location: 23445, 23425 and 23400 Smithtown Road (County Road 19) Applicant: City of Shorewood Tentative review at City Council: December 9, 2024 C) Fee Increases Applicant: City of Shorewood Tentative review at City Council: December 9, 2024 5. OTHER BUSINESS 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, OCTOBER 1, 2024 7:00 P.M. 4 5 MINUTES 6 7 8 CALL TO ORDER 9 10 Vice-Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 14 Present: Chair Eggenberger; Commissioners Gorham, Huskins; Planning Director Darling; 15 and, Council Liaison Zerby 16 17 Absent: Commissioners Holker and Johnson 18 19 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20 21 Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, approving the agenda for October 1, 2024, as 22 presented. Motion passed 3/0. 23 24 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25 26  SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 27 28 Vice-Chair Huskins shared the various locations of minor typographical corrections that were 29 needed and explained that he had already communicated these to Planning Director Darling. 30 31 Gorham moved, Huskins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 32 of September 17, 2024, as amended. Motion passed 3/0. 33 34 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 35 36 No one appeared to address the Commission. 37 38 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 39 Vice- Chair Huskins explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the 40 City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners 41 are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in 42 determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to 43 hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make 44 a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. 45 46 A. PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENTS TO THE R-3B ZONING DISTRICT AND 47 RELATED SECTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 48 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 49 Applicant: City of Shorewood 50 Location: City-Wide 51 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 2 of 9 1 2 Planning Director Darling explained that with the adoption of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, 3 late last year, the City must begin to make changes to the zoning ordinance as well as the zoning 4 map in order to implement the new Comprehensive Plan. She stated that among the changes 5 needed are a zoning district that would implement the high density land-use classification. She 6 explained that the City had identified the two shopping centers, the two parcels with existing 7 apartment buildings, and three parcels along Smithtown Road as being appropriate for high 8 density housing. She noted that the two shopping centers and the apartment buildings are all 9 developed with PUDs and would not need a zoning modification in order to implement the high 10 density land use classification or mixed use classification, but the three parcels along Smithtown 11 Road were currently zoned C-2 which does not allow for multiple family uses which means the 12 City must rezone the properties to a district that could implement the applied land use. She stated 13 that before the properties can be rezoned, the City needs to create a district that allows for 14 developments of a property at a minimum of eight units per acre, up to a maximum of thirty units 15 per acre. She stated that the proposal being presented tonight was amendments to the zoning 16 ordinance that would create that district as well as some related amendments to other sections of 17 City code. She reviewed the proposed changes section by section and explained that staff was 18 recommending approval. 19 20 Vice-Chair Huskins noted a typographical error found within the staff report that should say 21 between 8 and 30 units/acre. 22 23 Commissioner Gorham highlighted a few other typographical errors contained within the staff 24 report and the ordinance language. 25 26 Planning Director Darling explained that she had such considerable problems with the formatting 27 of this document that she had eventually just retyped the entire document. 28 29 Commissioner Gorham asked if the applicant included lower income housing to the 60% level if 30 that meant that they could go up to 30 units per acre. 31 32 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct. 33 34 Commissioner Gorham asked if there was a percentage of units or a number of lower-income 35 units they needed to have. 36 37 Planning Director Darling explained that it would be all of the units that would be allowed by that 38 bonus up and believe that the 1,800 square foot lot area would allow 24% of 24 units/acre, which 39 means it would be the last 6 units per acre, as the minimum. 40 41 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there was anything in here that would say market rate units at all. He 42 asked if someone came with a project and said that they would all going to be affordable housing 43 if they could still be anywhere between the 8 and 30 units/acre. 44 45 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and noted that they could do 2 units per acre 46 and end up with 26 units. 47 48 Commissioner Gorham noted that something like this has never come to them and asked if they 49 would be able to request more units, for example, we want 6 here. 50 51 Planning Director Darling explained that the Commission would not have a lot of negotiating 52 power and noted that if, for example, they were already proposing 30 units, the Commission would CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 3 of 9 1 have no negotiating power. She noted that it could also be that they stop at 26 units to the acre 2 because they cannot provide an adequate amount of parking or cannot fit things in within the 40 3 foot height limitation on the building. She explained that in that situation it would essentially force 4 them into having to make a variance request. 5 6 Commissioner Gorham asked how the City would encourage elderly housing. 7 8 Planning Director Darling stated that she felt that taking away some of the process makes it more 9 desirable to build that type of housing. She stated that she would not want to add more layers or 10 applications than you would for a market-rate apartment. 11 12 Commissioner Gorham stated that if a developer comes in with a 24-unit/acre development but 13 the City would really like to have more elderly housing whether there would be any way to 14 encourage it. 15 16 Planning Director Darling stated that she did not believe that the City could force a developer to 17 do it. 18 19 Commissioner Gorham asked what other cities have done to encourage or attract elderly housing 20 and gave the example of The Waters. 21 22 Planning Director Darling stated that for The Waters, she wasn’t sure if the city approached the 23 private developer or if it was the other way around but noted that the development company that 24 proposed it does specialize in senior housing. 25 26 Commissioner Gorham stated that it appears as though this draft has made it easier but there 27 would essentially be no way for the City to specifically target elderly housing. He explained that 28 he felt the City was seeing a lot of the same type of housing and asked how the City may be able 29 to get to a different market. 30 31 Planning Director Darling explained that what the City was trying to accomplish with these 32 ordinance amendments was to encourage people to provide affordable housing, which is why it 33 was written up with a density bonus. 34 35 Vice-Chair Huskins noted that if they conform with the zoning district in its entirety, then the City 36 would have no leverage, but if the developer comes with a variance request, then the City would 37 have more leverage. 38 39 Chair Eggenberger referenced Section 5 related to parking and noted that they single out 40 townhomes which require 1 guest parking space for every 3 dwelling units, but there weren’t the 41 same guest parking requirements for elderly housing and asked what the thinking was behind 42 these two choices. 43 44 Planning Director Darling asked if the Commission would like her to add the requirement for 45 additional guest parking for elderly housing. She explained that townhomes were frequently 46 developed on either driveways or private drives that do not have any shared parking areas which 47 means if there is a guest or a party, it would put all the impact onto the adjacent roadways. She 48 noted that all of the recent townhome developments have all included at least a few spaces for 49 guest parking because they have all been proposed on streets that do not allow on-street parking. 50 51 Chair Eggenberger stated that he felt that the requirements should be the same. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 4 of 9 1 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he also felt that they should be the same for townhomes and 2 elderly housing. 3 4 Commissioner Gorham referenced the first paragraph of the staff report, where there was a 5 statement about creating the 55 new high density housing units that the City was required by the 6 State to provide and asked if that meant the way it was guided by the Comprehensive Plan. 7 8 Planning Director Darling stated that she was referring to the Comprehensive Plan. 9 10 Commissioner Gorham asked if by saying ‘the State,’ she was actually referring to the Met 11 Council. 12 13 Planning Director Darling stated that she was referring to the Met Council as an instrument of the 14 State government. 15 16 Commissioner Gorham asked if it was actually a ‘requirement’ and explained that the way the 17 statement was worded sounded a bit Draconian. 18 19 Planning Director Darling stated that once the City puts the high-density land use classification 20 into the Comprehensive Plan, it is required, and if they propose something that is of lesser density 21 on those properties, the Met Council will deny the sewer permit for the development. 22 23 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that the Met Council was not concerned with where Shorewood offers 24 the opportunity for increased density. 25 26 Planning Director Darling agreed and explained that it was for the City to decide, but reiterated 27 that once they decide and include it in their Comprehensive Plan, they will expect the City to 28 enforce it. 29 30 Vice-Chair Huskins asked that if the City had 55 new units in the City that were not in a high- 31 density zoning district, whether they would still be on the hook for having 55 new units. 32 33 Planning Director Darling indicated that they would still be on the hook. 34 35 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that was a new understanding for him and explained that he just 36 thought the City had to have sufficient housing for a population increase that would require 55 37 houses. 38 39 Planning Director Darling stated that for 55 houses, the City has to have them at a density greater 40 than 5 units/acre and have to have 30+ units at a density of over 8 units/acre. 41 42 Commissioner Gorham stated that this was required by the Comprehensive Plan and felt that 43 saying it was required by the State was a bit too generic or over-simplified and suggested that the 44 wording be changed to make it clear that this was required by the Comprehensive Plan. 45 46 Planning Director Darling stated that they did tell the City how many units they had to provide and 47 were also told to go figure it out and find the areas where they could go. 48 49 Commissioner Gorham asked if the 55 units were the amount of units/acre based on the square 50 footage for those three lots. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 5 of 9 1 Planning Director Darling clarified that it wasn’t just for those three lots and stated that there were 2 several areas of the community and all of those areas together are adding up to at least 55 3 units/acre and noted that the 3 parcels would be rezoned to the R-3B district. 4 5 Commissioner Gorham asked how many acres of land the dredging company had. 6 7 Planning Director Darling stated that the dredging company had 1.64 acres. 8 9 Commissioner Gorham asked if, for example, that parcel ended up having a development that 10 had about 45 units/acre, if there was one other development that had 10 units/acre if that meant 11 the City would cover their Comprehensive Plan commitment. 12 13 Planning Director Darling stated that this would meet the Comprehensive Plan commitment but 14 cautioned that it did not mean that once the City had land that was guided for high density and 15 been rezoned to that district, they City would be able to take that designation away. She stated 16 that it also did not mean that any of those parcels would develop at the maximum amount either. 17 18 Chair Eggenberger asked what would happen if they ended up with less than 55. 19 20 Planning Director Darling stated that the City had allowed for the potential of having 55 new 21 housing units, so if property owners refuse to develop, they can do that indefinitely because the 22 City cannot force them to do it. 23 24 Commissioner Gorham asked what the timeline was for this requirement. 25 26 Planning Director Darling explained that it was between now and 2040. She noted that in the 27 next Comprehensive Plan, the Met Council may change all the guidelines, but the City still needed 28 to implement the Comprehensive Plan that they have in place right now. She suggested that the 29 Commission go take a look on the Met Council’s website at Imagine 2050 which is their vision 30 document. She explained that they were currently seeking public testimony between now and 31 October 7, 2024, and stated that the City would be submitting comments, but individuals could 32 also submit comments. 33 34 Vice-Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public 35 Hearing. There being no public comment, Vice-Chair Huskins closed the Public Hearing. 36 37 Commissioner Gorham stated that some of his questions were about the City’s leverage when 38 projects come to the City because it can feel like the City was essentially at the whim of what was 39 presented. He stated that he would like to see more elderly housing as well as more affordable 40 units, but the City does not have a ton of leverage. 41 42 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he wouldn’t think they would have a ton of leverage through the 43 ordinance amendments, but perhaps the City could find other ways to market or incentivize those 44 types of developments. 45 46 Commissioner Gorham stated that this is a Council-approved Comprehensive Plan and the 47 Commission was here to administer it the way the Council had already envisioned it. 48 49 Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the Amendments to 50 the R-3B Zoning District and Related Sections to Implement the High-Density Residential 51 Land Use Classification in the Comprehensive Plan. Motion passed 3/0. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 6 of 9 1 5. OTHER BUSINESS – 2 A. Review 2025-2034 Capital Improvements Program 3 Location: City-Wide 4 Applicant: City of Shorewood 5 6 Planning Director Darling explained that the Capital Improvements Program was a ten-year 7 budgeting tool used by the City in order to prioritize large capital projects and noted that it was 8 considered an implementation tool of the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that the 9 Commission’s responsibility is not to analyze each project but to generally review the projects for 10 the overall implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that all of the projects 11 included in the Capital Improvement Program are categorized by type as well as funding 12 mechanism. She noted that staff was recommending a positive finding that the Capital 13 Improvement Program was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and has provided 14 an authorization consistent with this recommendation. 15 16 Chair Eggenberger asked about the Street Reconstruction Fund in 2029 and why there was such 17 a large amount for that year. 18 19 Commissioner Gorham stated that he thought it was presuming that the City would support a 20 Highway 7 redesign project, but noted that he did not think it would happen by 2029. 21 22 Planning Director Darling stated that in 2029, they are looking at Grant Lorenz and several mill 23 and overlay projects. She noted that she believed that they were also looking at Vine Ridge Road 24 coming up, which may also be part of the reason because there has been some discussion about 25 combining efforts with Minnetonka since it was a shared roadway. 26 27 Commissioner Gorham asked about the Southshore Park Master Plan and if it would be 28 happening. 29 30 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed it would be happening this year, but noted that 31 it would take a few years of fundraising before it could be implemented. She stated that the 32 number included in the CIP was increased from $10,000 to $40,000 in order to be able to utilize 33 the services of a consultant. 34 35 Commissioner Gorham stated that the Comprehensive Plan directions are pretty generic for them 36 to just look at it and make sure it has priorities and funding. He explained that his problem was 37 just looking at the street reconstruction portion for 2029 because it was more than the City’s 38 annual budget. He stated that he understands that this is a ‘plan’ but questioned how the City 39 was reasonably supposed to do, for example, $7.4 million worth of work in just street 40 reconstruction. 41 42 Planning Director Darling stated that this number assumes that there would be money coming 43 from MSA, some grants, and possibly some bonding. 44 45 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that it just seemed like a lot for the City to pretend that 46 they could pay for and would mean a lot of bonding. 47 48 Planning Director Darling noted that she believed that they have this set so that some bonding 49 will expire before some of the more expensive projects move forward. 50 51 Commissioner Gorham stated that would be an overlay he would be interested in seeing because 52 they were almost saying that this was okay, but how it would be paid for was not included. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 7 of 9 1 stated that he would like to see some of the big picture things because they were almost looking 2 at this within a bubble by saying that the City was going to spend $7.4 million in 2029. 3 4 Planning Director Darling stated that the farther out you go on the CIP, the more likely the projects 5 are to shift and move, as funding allows. 6 7 Vice-Chair Huskins asked for an explanation of how the CIP got into its current form. 8 9 Planning Director Darling stated that it has been a substantial process and explained that it differs 10 a bit depending on the fund and used the example of the Park Fund and how the Park Commission 11 evaluates the condition of the parks every year and then reprioritizes them to ensure that the 12 parks or playgrounds that are in the worst condition get the higher priority. 13 14 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if for each of these if it would be fair to say that there has been a City 15 Department that has put thought into each item and their priorities. 16 17 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct. 18 19 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that if the information from each City Department then traveled to the 20 Finance Director for inclusion in the CIP and asked if there was any vetting that took place 21 between the departments. 22 23 Planning Director Darling stated that these items did go from the City Departments to the Finance 24 Director. She explained that for the Park Fund, the vetting for that would happen with the Park 25 Commission, but for the rest of them, staff spends a substantial amount of time going through all 26 of the projects. 27 28 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that anything the Commission flags, such as the large budget items for 29 roads in 2029, has already gone through some degree of vetting by staff. He explained that the 30 Commission did not have the benefit of the justification or rationale behind their selection of the 31 year or the amounts, but he felt that by pointing it out in their discussion, the Commission was still 32 doing a service to the City Council. 33 34 Planning Director Darling reviewed some of the street reconstruction projects within the CIP and 35 the length of time they have been included in the City’s plans. She explained that just because 36 they were included in the CIP did not mean that the City Council would have the order the projects. 37 38 Commissioner Gorham asked if there was a City water component to the Mill Street Trail 39 construction. 40 41 Planning Director Darling stated that there was a water component because there is a potential 42 to add watermain as long as the street was already going to be disrupted, but noted that the price 43 would be fairly high for that. She stated that the City had looked for inclusion in the State’s last 44 bonding bill but that did not happen, but the City could try again in the future. She noted that if 45 the City did not receive grants or have some other means of financing it, the watermain portion of 46 the project may be removed. 47 48 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that in many of these items, within the analysis the goal is to ‘maintain 49 a sound financial planning program for the capital improvements, relating such improvements to 50 actual need, proper location and timing.’ He stated that he would also expect that safety would 51 also be embedded in there and asked if that had been considered by staff. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 8 of 9 1 Planning Director Darling stated that the City Departments absolutely considered safety in their 2 analysis and shared examples from Safe Routes to School actions. 3 4 Vice-Chair Huskins asked what would happen if a legitimate public safety issue was identified 5 which should increase its priority, but it was complicated by things like involvement of other 6 jurisdictions or funding needs. He asked how the City weighed public safety in that kind of situation 7 and if there were any projects within the CIP that would fall into that category. 8 9 Planning Director Darling stated that the Galpin Lake Trail and improvements to Highway 7 were 10 good examples because the City cannot take on those projects by themselves even though they 11 know there are needs. She noted that the City had received $200,000 to help form a lobbying 12 group for the Highway 7 project and explained that she was hopeful that would also give the ability 13 to lobby for additional funding throughout the Highway 7 corridor as well. 14 15 Commissioner Gorham asked where the number had come from for the Highway 7 improvements 16 and if it assumed a local share. He asked why the City had assumed that they would have to give 17 MnDOT $4 million. 18 19 Planning Director Darling stated that she did not have all of the details on that but believed that 20 the local share was just a percentage share of what the total overall budget was assumed to be. 21 22 Commissioner Gorham asked if the City had to do a local share for a highway project. 23 24 Planning Director Darling stated that there will be local improvements that would be adjacent to 25 the larger project, which may have a share in costs for things like intersection improvements or 26 signals. She explained that she did not have all the details for this particular line item and 27 suggested that the Commission may want to ask the City Engineer for more details. 28 29 Eggenberger moved, Gorham seconded, to recommend approval of the 2025-2034 CIP 30 Based on the Finding that it is Generally Consistent with, Implements, and//or the Projects 31 are Contemplated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and further that the Chair of 32 Commission May Execute and Forward This Finding to the City Council. Motion passed 33 3/0. 34 35 6. REPORTS 36 37 • Council Meeting Report 38 39 Council Liaison Zerby reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s 40 recent meeting. 41 42 • Draft Next Meeting Agenda 43 44 Planning Director Darling stated that at the next meeting they will likely have the rezoning for the 45 three affected parcels for the R-3B zoning district and a CUP for an accessory apartment. She 46 noted that there may be cyber training for all people who have City e-mail accounts because there 47 have been a lot of ‘phishing’ incidents lately. 48 49 Vice-Chair Huskins asked for the date of the November Planning Commission meeting.. 50 51 Planning Director Darling stated that it would be November 19, 2024. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 9 of 9 1 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he believed he would be absent for that meeting. 2 th 3 Planning Director Darling stated that Commissioner Holker was scheduled to present on the 28 4 and asked if someone else could volunteer to cover that presentation. 5 6 Vice-Chair Huskins volunteered to cover that presentation. 7 8 7. ADJOURNMENT 9 10 Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 11 October 1, 2024, at 8:18 P.M. Motion passed 3/0. 12 Staff finds that the application is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, which as part of the Housing Plan recommends continuing to allow accessory apartments to allow seniors to remain in their single-family homes. The proposed use would be compatible with present and future land uses in the area and would not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Staff finds that the proposed use would be compatible with the present and future residential land uses in the area and that the request would not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The subject property is surrounded entirely by single-family residential land uses and the accessory apartment would be contained entirely within the existing footprint of the home. The proposed use would not overburden the City's service capacity and would be accommodated with existing public services including public streets. Staff has reviewed the request and found that the proposed use would not overburden the City's service capacity and would be accommodated with existing public services including public streets. The establishment, maintenance or operation of this proposed conditional use would promote and enhance the general public welfare and would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health and safety. Staff finds that the proposed conditional use would promote and enhance the general public welfare and would not be detrimental to or engager the public health and safety. This proposed use conforms to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located and otherwise conforms to the applicable regulations of the City Code. Staff finds that the proposed use conforms to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located and meets all applicable requirements for accessory apartments. Accessory Apartment Requirements: City Code 1201.03, Subd. 22 establishes requirements for accessory apartments and states that the purpose of allowing and regulating accessory apartments in single-family dwellings is to: increase the diversity of housing options for residents; encourage better utilization of existing housing stock; and protect the safety of residents and the stability, property value and character of residential neighborhoods. Accessory apartments are allowed by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in all single-family zoning districts and single-family residential planned unit developments. Since the subject property is located within a single-family residential planned unit development, the applicant can seek conditional use permit approval for an accessory apartment at their property. City Code also establishes a number of performance standards for accessory apartments including: The accessory apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the accessory apartment be more than 40% of the building's total floor area, nor have more than two bedrooms. The proposed accessory apartment is clearly a subordinate part of the dwelling, contains one bedroom, and is 19.9% of the building's total floor area. The principal unit shall have at least 700 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory apartments shall have at least 475 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At a minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a bathroom and a living room. The principal use will have 3,607 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment. The accessory apartment has 895 square feet of living space. No front entrances shall be added to the house as a result of the accessory apartment permit. No new front entrances are proposed as part of this application. An addition to the original building is permitted, provided that the addition does not increase the floor area or volume of the original building by more than 20%, and the addition will not alter the character of the building. No addition to the original building is proposed as part of this application. The owner of the residence in which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy the dwelling unit itself or the accessory apartment. The property owners have indicated that they will continue to occupy the dwelling unit after the accessory apartment is completed. Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons related by blood, marriage or adoption to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the owner by blood, marriage or adoption. Exception: the occupancy limitations stated herein shall not apply to one adult, live-in care -provider serving the needs of the primary occupant(s), provided that, if the care -provider resides on the premises for more than 30 days, notice must be given to the Zoning Administrator. Approval of the conditional use permit will be conditioned upon the occupancy limitations required by the City Code. The owner of the single-family residence shall enter into a residential use agreement with the city, stipulating that the home will not be used except for single-family residential purposes, and that the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood, marriage or adoption to the owner. Prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment, the owner shall provide evidence to the city that the residential use agreement has been recorded with the county. Approval of the conditional use permit will be conditioned upon entering into a residential use agreement with the City. Any property for which an accessory apartment is proposed shall have, at a minimum, three off-street parking spaces, two of which must be enclosed. Any parking provided pursuant to this section shall be located in a garage or an approved driveway. This agreement is attached for review. The property has at least 3 off-street parking spaces in the driveway and at least 3 enclosed off-street parking spaces in their garage. The accessory apartment and principal unit must meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the Rental Housing Code. Approval of the conditional use permit will be conditioned upon meeting applicable Building Code, Fire Code, and Rental Housing Code requirements. Building permits will be required for interior finishing and a rental license will be required if the accessory apartment is to be offered for rent. The building and property shall remain in single ownership and title, and shall only have one mailing address. Approval of the conditional use permit will be conditioned upon the property remaining in single ownership and only having one mailing address. Only one accessory apartment permit may be issued per detached single-family home. This would be the only accessory apartment on the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary building permits, zoning permits, and any other necessary permits prior to beginning any construction on the site. 2. Prior to beginning any construction on the site, the property owners shall enter into a residential use agreement with the City stipulating that the home will not be used except for single-family residential purposes, and that the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood, marriage or adoption to the owner. 3. Prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment, the residential use agreement shall be recorded with the Office of County Recorder. 4. The building and property shall remain in single ownership and title, and shall only have one mailing address. 5. The owner of the residence in which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy the dwelling unit itself or the accessory apartment. 6. The applicant shall obtain and pass all required permit inspections for the accessory apartment within one year after the date of approval, otherwise the conditional use permit shall become null and void subject to the requirements of City Code 1204.04, Subd. 3. d. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the proposed conditional use permit and make a recommendation to the City Council. Jane Anne Hill 19660 Sweetwater Curve Shorewood, MN 55331 To Whom it May Concern: September 23, 2024 I am requesting the allowance of an accessory apartment in my (R-1C) home's lower level so that I can more conveniently help and deal with the special needs of my brother who has both health issues and special needs. The lower level "apartment" space already exists and only needs a few appliances so there is no real "construction" that needs to happen. [1] 1 believe this is consistent with the policies and provisions of the comprehensive plan. [2) Further, the proposed use is compatible with current and future land uses in the area and would not tend to or actually depreciate the area. [3] We raised 4 sons here. We're now empty nesters with plenty of space so having one person in our lower level would be a fraction of the burden on the city's service capacity compared to having our 4 sons living with us. [4] This proposed conditional use would promote and enhance the general public welfare and would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health and safety. [5) The proposed conditional use conforms to the applicable regulations of the district and of the city code. The space would be less than 20% of our total square footage. We have at least 3 off street parking spaces on the driveway as well as 3+ more in our garage. (See copies of floor plans; 2 sets provided.) Sincerely RECEIVED lz:� 1-11--.2�k"I/zq� SEP 24, 202, Jane Anne Hill 0 Denotes Iron Monument, XOOO.0 Denotes.Existing Elevation (000.0) Denotes Proposed Elevation rETLANDS Denotes directionof Surface Drainage Proposed top of Foundation Elevation, = 915.0 .2A I Proposed Garage Floor Elevation = 914.(, ProposedLowest Floor. Elevation = "7.0 el I hereby certify that this is a true and, Z_ A.00,5 correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of. o x P Ok > OPP 6 Lot 6,.Black I, SWEVIVATER AT NEAR MOUNTAIN, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 0.0 1 -1 to And of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible V encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this 19th clay of Oc ober 1987. Thomas S. Berq( at Registered Land Surveyor, a 10 1 Minnesota Lic. No. 7725 S'v"' kk 4 \7 9 Z' 91115 16P z: qqe&_7 '0 *40 zs- 16- 140 414.1 i. I TIL 9+3 Ix I __/P - %% !P Amps 3000 00 RE-BEROQUIST, INC. S A T N CERTIFICATE 'OF SURVEY FOR 106 SOUTH BROADWAY* WAYZATA, SIN $5391 T9LEPHONES12-4784000 _5&0 LUNDGREN BROS. CONSrRUCITON, INC. _TfY7 r::10 r- V_/eFV_ r- quo t" .�. ft r" . i r �f a 17, If - tCa f I I F i l NOVO s f r r q i i f J �^ 1 �- ua (reserved. for recording) RESIDENTIAL USE AGREEMENT THIS RESIDENTIAL USE AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), is made effective as of this day of , 2024 by and between the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and PETER HILL AND JANE ANNE HILL, husband and wife ("Owners"). WHEREAS, Owners are the owners of certain real property located at 19660 Sweetwater Curve, Shorewood, MN 55331, PID: 36-117-23-41-0007, and legally described in Exhibit A ("Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently zoned R-IC and is permitted to have accessory apartments subject to the standards set in City Code 1201.03, subd. 22, including execution of a residential use agreement limiting use of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Owners applied for a conditional use permit, recorded as Document No. ("CUP"), to convert the lower level of the single-family dwelling on the Property into an accessory apartment and the City has approved Owners' conditional use permit for this accessory apartment use. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree that the Property shall be subject to the following restrictions, conditions and covenants: 1. Use of the Property. The Property shall be used solely for single-family residential purposes. Any accessory apartment now existing or hereinafter established on the Property shall not be rented out to anyone not related by blood, marriage or adoption to the Owners, and their heirs, successors, assigns, or grantees. 2. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded and run with the title to the Property and shall be binding upon Owners' heirs, successors and assigns, including without limitation all subsequent owners of the Property and all persons claiming under them. 232827v2 Owners shall record this Agreement and provide proof of recording to the City before any an accessory apartment on the Property may be occupied. 3. Duration of Restrictions. Conditions, and Covenants. All restrictions, conditions and covenants herein shall continue to run with land for the duration of the CUP. 4. Owners' Covenants. The Owners, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, do hereby covenant with the City and its successors and assigns, that Owners are well seized in fee of the Property and that they have the sole right to grant and convey this Agreement, and that they, their heirs, successors, and assigns, will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the covenants contained in this Agreement. 5. Inspection. Owners agree to permit City to enter onto the Property at reasonable times, upon notice to the Owners, to inspect if the restrictions, conditions, and covenants in this Agreement are being observed, including inside any accessory apartment now existing or hereinafter established on the Property. The right of inspection shall include the right to take photographs and prepare written descriptions of the Property for the purpose of documenting compliance or noncompliance with the restrictions, conditions, and covenants. 6. Survival. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, conditions and restrictions, whether by judgment or court order, shall not affect any of the remaining provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. This parties have read this Agreement, reviewed it with an attorney of their choice if they chose to do so, and agree that no provision of this Agreement shall be construed against either party. 7. No Waiver. Failure by the City to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or limit the right to enforce any provision of this Agreement in future. 8. Violation. The City has the right to sue Owners to enjoin any violation of this Agreement and to require Owners to restore the Property to compliance with this Agreement at their own expense. 9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior agreements, understandings, or written or verbal representations made between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above. [Signature and exhibit pages to follow] 232827v2 OWNER: Peter Hill STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2024, by Peter Hill, married to Jane Anne Hill, Owner. Notary Public OWNER: Jane Anne Hill STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2024, by Jane Anne Hill, married to Peter Hill, Owner. Notary Public 232827v2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Jennifer Labadie Its: Mayor By: Sandie Thone Its: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 2024, by Jennifer Labadie and Sandie Thone, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 232827v2 EXHIBIT A � Legal Description Legal Description of the Property located at 19660 Sweetwater Curve, Shorewood, MN 55331: Lot 6, Block 1 Sweetwater at Near Mountain, Hennepin County, Minnesota [PID:36-117-23-41-0007] 232827v2 Marie Darling From:Marie Darling Sent:Tuesday, November 12, 2024 4:39 PM To:DENISE HOLMGREN; Planning Subject:RE: Rezoning 3 parcels from C2 to R-3B Thanks for your email. I'll a?ach a copy of it to the report that goes to the Planning Commission and City Council as well as my response. The report will be available on Friday if you would like to read it. Here is a link to the spot on the website where the report will be included: h?ps://shorewoodmn.gov/AgendaCenter Scroll down to planning commission and click on the correct date for the full packet including this report (11-19-24). The change in the districts is to allow the proper?es to develop consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Generally commercial zoning districts allow uses with more intensive traffic genera?on than residen?al. MARIE DARLING Planning Director City Hall: 952.960.7900 5755 Country Club Road Direct: 952.960.7912 Shorewood, MN 55331 mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us h?ps://www.shorewoodmn.gov/ -----Original Message----- From: DENISE HOLMGREN <holmgrendee@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 9:33 PM To: Planning <Planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Rezoning 3 parcels from C2 to R-3B I’m concerned with the traffic and amount of development on Smithtown Road (especially a?er the development of the golf course and all development in Tonka Bay). It’s too much! What has or is going to be done with the traffic on Smithtown? Thank you, Denise Holmgren A concerned resident on Smithtown 1 Planning Commission Meeting Item Item Title/Subject: Increase to Planning and Zoning Application Fees 4C Meeting Date: November 19, 2024 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Draft Ordinance APPLICANT: City of Shorewood LOCATION: City-wide REQUEST The City of Shorewood is proposing the attached escrow increases to ensure that the city collects adequate funds to pay for the cost to have consultants (engineering, legal, and planners) review applications. Toward that end, the City raised escrows one year ago, but staff continue to need to bill developers for overages because when costs exceed the escrow submitted, invoices would be sent to the applicants. Requiring the applicant to submit a larger escrow up front allows the applicant to better estimate their application costs before they submit the application and saves staff time drafting sometimes multiple invoices to applicants, who may or may not be property owners. If the escrow is not used or partially used, the remaining balance is returned to the applicant after the final charges are posted. To ensure adequate escrows are retained, staff propose that the applicant would submit an escrow for the combined total of all the required escrow amounts for the various applications. Additionally, staff has noticed one escrow that is too low for the amount of consultant review time it generates based on a recent application. Staff propose to increase the escrow from $1,000 to $2,000 for PUD Concept Plan applications. Staff anticipates that there will be more PUD Concept Plans submitted on their own in the future and this escrow needs to be able to cover the cost of reviewing the application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the changes proposed in the attached ordinance and recommend the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to consider this request.