Loading...
10-1-2024 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2024 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Eggenberger; Commissioners Gorham, Huskins; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Zerby Absent: Commissioners Holker and Johnson 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, approving the agenda for October 1, 2024, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Vice-Chair Huskins shared the various locations of minor typographical corrections that were needed and explained that he had already communicated these to Planning Director Darling. Gorham moved, Huskins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2024, as amended. Motion passed 3/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR No one appeared to address the Commission. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Vice- Chair Huskins explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. A. PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENTS TO THE R-3B ZONING DISTRICT AND RELATED SECTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-Wide CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Planning Director Darling explained that with the adoption of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, late last year, the City must begin to make changes to the zoning ordinance as well as the zoning map in order to implement the new Comprehensive Plan. She stated that among the changes needed are a zoning district that would implement the high density land-use classification. She explained that the City had identified the two shopping centers, the two parcels with existing apartment buildings, and three parcels along Smithtown Road as being appropriate for high density housing. She noted that the two shopping centers and the apartment buildings are all developed with PUDs and would not need a zoning modification in order to implement the high density land use classification or mixed use classification, but the three parcels along Smithtown Road were currently zoned C-2 which does not allow for multiple family uses which means the City must rezone the properties to a district that could implement the applied land use. She stated that before the properties can be rezoned, the City needs to create a district that allows for developments of a property at a minimum of eight units per acre, up to a maximum of thirty units per acre. She stated that the proposal being presented tonight was amendments to the zoning ordinance that would create that district as well as some related amendments to other sections of City code. She reviewed the proposed changes section by section and explained that staff was recommending approval. Vice-Chair Huskins noted a typographical error found within the staff report that should say between 8 and 30 units/acre. Commissioner Gorham highlighted a few other typographical errors contained within the staff report and the ordinance language. Planning Director Darling explained that she had such considerable problems with the formatting of this document that she had eventually just retyped the entire document. Commissioner Gorham asked if the applicant included lower income housing to the 60% level if that meant that they could go up to 30 units per acre. Planning Director Darling stated that was correct. Commissioner Gorham asked if there was a percentage of units or a number of lower-income units they needed to have. Planning Director Darling explained that it would be all of the units that would be allowed by that bonus up and believe that the 1,800 square foot lot area would allow 24% of 24 units/acre, which means it would be the last 6 units per acre, as the minimum. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there was anything in here that would say market rate units at all. He asked if someone came with a project and said that they would all going to be affordable housing if they could still be anywhere between the 8 and 30 units/acre. Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and noted that they could do 2 units per acre and end up with 26 units. Commissioner Gorham noted that something like this has never come to them and asked if they would be able to request more units, for example, we want 6 here. Planning Director Darling explained that the Commission would not have a lot of negotiating power and noted that if, for example, they were already proposing 30 units, the Commission would have no negotiating power. She noted that it could also be that they stop at 26 units to the acre CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 3 of 9 because they cannot provide an adequate amount of parking or cannot fit things in within the 40 foot height limitation on the building. She explained that in that situation it would essentially force them into having to make a variance request. Commissioner Gorham asked how the City would encourage elderly housing. Planning Director Darling stated that she felt that taking away some of the process makes it more desirable to build that type of housing. She stated that she would not want to add more layers or applications than you would for a market-rate apartment. Commissioner Gorham stated that if a developer comes in with a 24-unit/acre development but the City would really like to have more elderly housing whether there would be any way to encourage it. Planning Director Darling stated that she did not believe that the City could force a developer to do it. Commissioner Gorham asked what other cities have done to encourage or attract elderly housing and gave the example of The Waters. Planning Director Darling stated that for The Waters, she wasn’t sure if the city approached the private developer or if it was the other way around but noted that the development company that proposed it does specialize in senior housing. Commissioner Gorham stated that it appears as though this draft has made it easier but there would essentially be no way for the City to specifically target elderly housing. He explained that he felt the City was seeing a lot of the same type of housing and asked how the City may be able to get to a different market. Planning Director Darling explained that what the City was trying to accomplish with these ordinance amendments was to encourage people to provide affordable housing, which is why it was written up with a density bonus. Vice-Chair Huskins noted that if they conform with the zoning district in its entirety, then the City would have no leverage, but if the developer comes with a variance request, then the City would have more leverage. Chair Eggenberger referenced Section 5 related to parking and noted that they single out townhomes which require 1 guest parking space for every 3 dwelling units, but there weren’t the same guest parking requirements for elderly housing and asked what the thinking was behind these two choices. Planning Director Darling asked if the Commission would like her to add the requirement for additional guest parking for elderly housing. She explained that townhomes were frequently developed on either driveways or private drives that do not have any shared parking areas which means if there is a guest or a party, it would put all the impact onto the adjacent roadways. She noted that all of the recent townhome developments have all included at least a few spaces for guest parking because they have all been proposed on streets that do not allow on-street parking. Chair Eggenberger stated that he felt that the requirements should be the same. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 4 of 9 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he also felt that they should be the same for townhomes and elderly housing. Commissioner Gorham referenced the first paragraph of the staff report, where there was a statement about creating the 55 new high density housing units that the City was required by the State to provide and asked if that meant the way it was guided by the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Darling stated that she was referring to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gorham asked if by saying ‘the State,’ she was actually referring to the Met Council. Planning Director Darling stated that she was referring to the Met Council as an instrument of the State government. Commissioner Gorham asked if it was actually a ‘requirement’ and explained that the way the statement was worded sounded a bit Draconian. Planning Director Darling stated that once the City puts the high-density land use classification into the Comprehensive Plan, it is required, and if they propose something that is of lesser density on those properties, the Met Council will deny the sewer permit for the development. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that the Met Council was not concerned with where Shorewood offers the opportunity for increased density. Planning Director Darling agreed and explained that it was for the City to decide, but reiterated that once they decide and include it in their Comprehensive Plan, they will expect the City to enforce it. Vice-Chair Huskins asked that if the City had 55 new units in the City that were not in a high- density zoning district, whether they would still be on the hook for having 55 new units. Planning Director Darling indicated that they would still be on the hook. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that was a new understanding for him and explained that he just thought the City had to have sufficient housing for a population increase that would require 55 houses. Planning Director Darling stated that for 55 houses, the City has to have them at a density greater than 5 units/acre and have to have 30+ units at a density of over 8 units/acre. Commissioner Gorham stated that this was required by the Comprehensive Plan and felt that saying it was required by the State was a bit too generic or over-simplified and suggested that the wording be changed to make it clear that this was required by the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Darling stated that they did tell the City how many units they had to provide and were also told to go figure it out and find the areas where they could go. Commissioner Gorham asked if the 55 units were the amount of units/acre based on the square footage for those three lots. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Planning Director Darling clarified that it wasn’t just for those three lots and stated that there were several areas of the community and all of those areas together are adding up to at least 55 units/acre and noted that the 3 parcels would be rezoned to the R-3B district. Commissioner Gorham asked how many acres of land the dredging company had. Planning Director Darling stated that the dredging company had 1.64 acres. Commissioner Gorham asked if, for example, that parcel ended up having a development that had about 45 units/acre, if there was one other development that had 10 units/acre if that meant the City would cover their Comprehensive Plan commitment. Planning Director Darling stated that this would meet the Comprehensive Plan commitment but cautioned that it did not mean that once the City had land that was guided for high density and been rezoned to that district, they City would be able to take that designation away. She stated that it also did not mean that any of those parcels would develop at the maximum amount either. Chair Eggenberger asked what would happen if they ended up with less than 55. Planning Director Darling stated that the City had allowed for the potential of having 55 new housing units, so if property owners refuse to develop, they can do that indefinitely because the City cannot force them to do it. Commissioner Gorham asked what the timeline was for this requirement. Planning Director Darling explained that it was between now and 2040. She noted that in the next Comprehensive Plan, the Met Council may change all the guidelines, but the City still needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan that they have in place right now. She suggested that the Commission go take a look on the Met Council’s website at Imagine 2050 which is their vision document. She explained that they were currently seeking public testimony between now and October 7, 2024, and stated that the City would be submitting comments, but individuals could also submit comments. Vice-Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no public comment, Vice-Chair Huskins closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Gorham stated that some of his questions were about the City’s leverage when projects come to the City because it can feel like the City was essentially at the whim of what was presented. He stated that he would like to see more elderly housing as well as more affordable units, but the City does not have a ton of leverage. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he wouldn’t think they would have a ton of leverage through the ordinance amendments, but perhaps the City could find other ways to market or incentivize those types of developments. Commissioner Gorham stated that this is a Council-approved Comprehensive Plan and the Commission was here to administer it the way the Council had already envisioned it. Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the Amendments to the R-3B Zoning District and Related Sections to Implement the High-Density Residential Land Use Classification in the Comprehensive Plan. Motion passed 3/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 6 of 9 5. OTHER BUSINESS – A. Review 2025-2034 Capital Improvements Program Location: City-Wide Applicant: City of Shorewood Planning Director Darling explained that the Capital Improvements Program was a ten-year budgeting tool used by the City in order to prioritize large capital projects and noted that it was considered an implementation tool of the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that the Commission’s responsibility is not to analyze each project but to generally review the projects for the overall implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that all of the projects included in the Capital Improvement Program are categorized by type as well as funding mechanism. She noted that staff was recommending a positive finding that the Capital Improvement Program was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and has provided an authorization consistent with this recommendation. Chair Eggenberger asked about the Street Reconstruction Fund in 2029 and why there was such a large amount for that year. Commissioner Gorham stated that he thought it was presuming that the City would support a Highway 7 redesign project, but noted that he did not think it would happen by 2029. Planning Director Darling stated that in 2029, they are looking at Grant Lorenz and several mill and overlay projects. She noted that she believed that they were also looking at Vine Ridge Road coming up, which may also be part of the reason because there has been some discussion about combining efforts with Minnetonka since it was a shared roadway. Commissioner Gorham asked about the Southshore Park Master Plan and if it would be happening. Planning Director Darling stated that she believed it would be happening this year, but noted that it would take a few years of fundraising before it could be implemented. She stated that the number included in the CIP was increased from $10,000 to $40,000 in order to be able to utilize the services of a consultant. Commissioner Gorham stated that the Comprehensive Plan directions are pretty generic for them to just look at it and make sure it has priorities and funding. He explained that his problem was just looking at the street reconstruction portion for 2029 because it was more than the City’s annual budget. He stated that he understands that this is a ‘plan’ but questioned how the City was reasonably supposed to do, for example, $7.4 million worth of work in just street reconstruction. Planning Director Darling stated that this number assumes that there would be money coming from MSA, some grants, and possibly some bonding. Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that it just seemed like a lot for the City to pretend that they could pay for and would mean a lot of bonding. Planning Director Darling noted that she believed that they have this set so that some bonding will expire before some of the more expensive projects move forward. Commissioner Gorham stated that would be information he would be interested in seeing because 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 stated that he would like to see some of the big picture things because they were almost looking at this within a bubble by saying that the City was going to spend $7.4 million in 2029. Planning Director Darling stated that the farther out you go on the CIP, the more likely the projects are to shift and move, as funding allows. Vice-Chair Huskins asked for an explanation of how the CIP got into its current form. Planning Director Darling stated that it has been a substantial process and explained that it differs a bit depending on the fund and used the example of the Park Fund and how the Park Commission evaluates the condition of the parks every year and then reprioritizes them to ensure that the parks or playgrounds that are in the worst condition get the higher priority. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if for each of these if it would be fair to say that there has been a City Department that has put thought into each item and their priorities. Planning Director Darling stated that was correct. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that if the information from each City Department then traveled to the Finance Director for inclusion in the CIP and asked if there was any vetting that took place between the departments. Planning Director Darling stated that these items did go from the City Departments to the Finance Director. She explained that for the Park Fund, the vetting for that would happen with the Park Commission, but for the rest of them, staff spends a substantial amount of time going through all of the projects. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that anything the Commission flags, such as the large budget items for roads in 2029, has already gone through some degree of vetting by staff. He explained that the Commission did not have the benefit of the justification or rationale behind their selection of the year or the amounts, but he felt that by pointing it out in their discussion, the Commission was still doing a service to the City Council. Planning Director Darling reviewed some of the street reconstruction projects within the CIP and the length of time they have been included in the City’s plans. She explained that just because they were included in the CIP did not mean that the City Council would have the order the projects. Commissioner Gorham asked if there was a City water component to the Mill Street Trail construction. Planning Director Darling stated that there was a water component because there is a potential to add a watermain as long as the street was already going to be disrupted, but noted that the price would be fairly high for that. She stated that the City had looked for inclusion in the State’s last bonding bill but that did not happen, but the City could try again in the future. She noted that if the City did not receive grants or have some other means of financing it, the watermain portion of the project may be removed. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that in many of these items, within the analysis the goal is to ‘maintain a sound financial planning program for the capital improvements, relating such improvements to actual need, proper location and timing.’ He stated that he would also expect that safety would also be embedded in there and asked if that had been considered by staff. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 8 of 9 Planning Director Darling stated that the City Departments absolutely considered safety in their analysis and shared examples from Safe Routes to School actions. Vice-Chair Huskins asked what would happen if a legitimate public safety issue was identified which should increase its priority, but it was complicated by things like involvement of other jurisdictions or funding needs. He asked how the City weighed public safety in that kind of situation and if there were any projects within the CIP that would fall into that category. Planning Director Darling stated that the Galpin Lake Trail and improvements to Highway 7 were good examples because the City cannot take on those projects by themselves even though they know there are needs. She noted that the City had received $200,000 to help form a lobbying group for the Highway 7 project and explained that she was hopeful that would also give the ability to lobby for additional funding throughout the Highway 7 corridor as well. Commissioner Gorham asked where the number had come from for the Highway 7 improvements and if it assumed a local share. He asked why the City had assumed that they would have to give MnDOT $4 million. Planning Director Darling stated that she did not have all of the details on that but believed that the local share was just a percentage share of what the total overall budget was assumed to be. Commissioner Gorham asked if the City had to do a local share for a highway project. Planning Director Darling stated that there will be local improvements that would be adjacent to the larger project, which may have a share in costs for things like intersection improvements or signals. She explained that she did not have all the details for this particular line item and suggested that the Commission may want to ask the City Engineer for more details. Eggenberger moved, Gorham seconded, to recommend approval of the 2025-2034 CIP Based on the Finding that it is Generally Consistent with, Implements, and//or the Projects are Contemplated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and further that the Chair of Commission May Execute and Forward This Finding to the City Council. Motion passed 3/0. 6. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report Council Liaison Zerby reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s recent meeting. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated that at the next meeting they will likely have the rezoning for the three affected parcels for the R-3B zoning district and a CUP for an accessory apartment. She noted that there may be cyber training for all people who have City e-mail accounts because there have been a lot of ‘phishing’ incidents lately. Vice-Chair Huskins asked for the date of the November Planning Commission meeting.. Planning Director Darling stated that it would be November 19, 2024. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2024 Page 9 of 9 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he believed he would be absent for that meeting. th Planning Director Darling stated that Commissioner Holker was scheduled to present on the 28 and asked if someone else could volunteer to cover that presentation. Vice-Chair Huskins volunteered to cover that presentation. 7. ADJOURNMENT Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 1, 2024, at 8:18 P.M. Motion passed 3/0.