Loading...
8-20-2024 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2024 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Eggenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Eggenberger; Commissioners Gorham, Huskins, and Holker; and Planning Director Darling Absent: Commissioner Johnson 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Huskins moved, Holker seconded, approving the agenda for August 20, 2024, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  July 16, 2024 Planning Director Darling noted that she was informed prior to the meeting of 5 small typographical errors from the minutes on pages 3, 6, 8, and 10 which she had already corrected. Holker moved, Huskins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2024, as updated by Planning Director Darling. Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Eggenberger 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 – CUP APPLICATION FOR AT&T ANTENNA COLLOCATION Applicant: AT&T Mobility Location: 24283 Smithtown Road Planning Director Darling outlined the request from AT&T Mobility to add nine cellular antennas in a new triangular array on the existing tower along with the necessary ground equipment. She reviewed some of the background/history of the tower and surrounding land uses and noted that 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 explained that this application was a replacement of a similar application that was approved by the City in 2022. Commissioner Huskins asked if there were any significant changes from what had been presented in 2022. Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant had just made some minor changes to the application. Commissioner Huskins stated that the staff report referenced the ground equipment being placed in the recent expansion of the existing fenced area and asked for details on the expansion. Planning Director Darling explained that about the same time the Commission had been reviewing the AT&T antenna collocation in 2022, there was a separate application from T-Mobile and also a dish provider for more equipment. She stated that they both went up and had increased the size of the fenced area in order to accommodate all of the antennas. Commissioner Huskins asked why the applicant would be responsible for tree removal outside of the fenced area. Planning Director Darling explained that the trees were on the subject property and the conditions require that the dead trees are removed and that the applicant do some minor site clean-up before they plant new trees that are required for screening. Chair Eggenberger asked how long an applicant has to act after it is approved and whether they notify the City when they are done with the work. Planning Director Darling explained that she reviews their building permits and noted that in this case, the building permit had also expired, so when the new application came in, she flagged it as needing a revised CUP application. Chair Eggenberger asked if the applicant decided not to go ahead with what had been approved whether they would be required to notify the City. Planning Director Darling stated that there was not a notification requirement for that scenario. Jason Hall, 7365 Kirkwood Court N, Maple Grove, explained that he represented AT&T Mobility and had been working through this with staff and noted that they have no issues with the conditions that have been proposed and were eager to get started on this project this fall. Chair Eggenberger asked why AT&T had not gone ahead with this project following the earlier approval from the City. Mr. Hall explained that it ended up being a budgetary issue. Commissioner Huskins asked if there would be any disruption to service of the existing antennas. Mr. Hall stated that there would not be any disruptions in service. Planning Director Darling pointed out that the antennas would be going in at 115 feet which would make them the lowest antennas on the tower. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 3 of 14 Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no one present wishing to comment, he closed the Public Hearing. Holker moved, Gorham seconded, recommending approval of the CUP application for AT&T antenna collocation for AT&T Mobility located at 24283 Smithtown Road, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion passed 4/0. Planning Director Darling stated that this item would go before the City Council on August 26, 2024. B. PUBLIC HEARING – CANNABIS RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-wide Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the necessary amendments to the City’s zoning regulations in relation to the new State law that will issue licenses to cannabis-related businesses. She explained that the City would not be able to prohibit cannabis businesses from operating within the City. She noted that most of the licenses from the State would not be issued until 2025 but they are allowing some producers to apply for licenses prior to that so the City needed to have their regulations in place before those licenses are issued. She reviewed that the restrictions that would be allowed per the State statute and noted that staff had looked at including them as conditional uses under the C-1 zoning district. She explained that when these restrictions were placed on the City’s C-1 properties, there were only three parcels that would qualify for this type of business which are located at the intersection of Vine Hill Road and the frontage road for Highway 7. She noted that the businesses that currently occupy these properties are Starbuck’s, a pizza restaurant and a mini-storage facility. Staff recommend approval of the ordinance amendments as outlined. Chair Eggenberger asked if the City Council had already discussed these at one of their work sessions in July. Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and explained that the Council had given staff direction on how to craft the ordinances and what would be needed if the City were to also register the businesses in the City. She stated that the draft ordinance being presented to the Commission looks a bit different because what had originally been sent to the Council was allowing these as a permitted use because they had the restrictions in the registration regulations rather than the zoning code. She gave a brief overview of the ordinance and the proposed amendments. Commissioner Gorham stated that this would be an amendment to C-1 and asked for an explanation of why it would not be C-2. Planning Director Darling stated that she had not proposed the C-2 zoning district because there were only three parcels in the City that are zoned C-2 and all are guided in the Comprehensive Plan for high-density residential uses and would end up being rezoned to something else. She explained that meant that there would actually not be any properties zoned C-2 in the City. Commissioner Gorham gave the example of Cub Foods' development. Planning Director Darling stated that the Cub Foods site is zoned C-1, it has a Planned Unit Development, but was within 1,000 feet of Minnetonka Middle School. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 4 of 14 Commissioner Holker referenced Section 3, Subd. 4 (2) and asked if that meant that if something like a park goes in if that meant that the cannabis business would have to vacate. Planning Director Darling clarified that the statement means that the cannabis business would have to be allowed to stay. Commissioner Gorham stated that with the example of the C-1 properties referenced by Planning Director Darling, if the storage unit ended up vacant whether that meant the cannabis shop could then occupy as much of the square feet as they wanted to. Planning Director Darling stated that she would assume that cannabis would have more success if they moved into the two other commercial businesses than they would in the mini-storage facility because those buildings were designed not designed for retail uses but because the mini-storage facility was built for storage, there could be a cannabis warehouse or storage that moved into that building. Commissioner Gorham gave a scenario where the cannabis business bought the property and bulldozed the storage facility if they could build as large of a cannabis retail space that they wanted to do or if there were restrictions on size. Planning Director Darling stated that they would have to meet the appropriate district setbacks and other rules, but they could build a building for a cannabis business. Commissioner Gorham asked if there was any limit on the size of the retail space or if they could essentially build a ‘cannabis superstore’ in that location. Planning Director Darling stated that there may be something that exists within the licensing rules for how large the facility can be, but the City would not be able to limit the size. Commissioner Huskins asked about the prohibition of being located within the buffer area of schools and daycares and asked if the City could add any other prohibitions to what has been outlined by the State. He explained that he was thinking about things like a church, a residential area, or a nursing home. Planning Director Darling explained that the distance prohibition does not allow for churches, but does allow for daycares, residential treatment centers, and parks and clarified that this is what the State allows the City to buffer from and cannot allow additional restrictions. Commissioner Huskins stated that in Excelsior there are a few locations where one can purchase product that is a derivative of cannabis which are CBD or THC and asked if this related to those types of products. Planning Director Darling stated that it did not relate to those types of products and explained that those are considered low potency products and the City had previously elected not to regulate the low dosage THC products. Commissioner Huskins asked if someone wished to enter into that type of business in the City if there was existing code that would also spell out the appropriate locations in the City. Planning Director Darling stated that there was no existing code for low-dose THC products because they those products are not regulated by the city. For example, there are chiropractors and medical buildings that are allowed to sell CBD creams and products for humans and she CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 5 of 14 believes that there were also some products that could be sold at vet clinics as well. She stated that she also believed there are some low dosage THC products and beverages that are sold in liquor stores and smoke shops and could also be served at the City’s restaurants that have liquor licenses. Commissioner Huskins asked if there were any likely locations just outside of the City boundaries in the same area as the C-1 district highlighted by staff or if the City did not know what the surrounding communities would do. Planning Director Darling stated that she knows that Minnetonka had put a moratorium in place so they had time to study this in more depth and believes that they will end up having some of the same restrictions as Shorewood. She stated that she would not be surprised if there would be some retail locations allowed at 101 and Highway 7 because they have very large commercial districts, but Minnetonka also has industrial districts where some of these uses could perhaps fit in better. She stated that several of the adjacent communities are also looking into this and noted that Mound adopted their standards in July. Commissioner Huskins explained that what motivated his question was the condition related to the location of similar businesses. He asked if Minnetonka put one in and whether that could be construed as another restriction and explained that he did not know if someone was champing at the bit to start this kind of business in Shorewood. He stated that given the footprint of the City, it is very limiting where these businesses can locate and thought it may be perceived by others as the City’s way of getting around the requirement from the State. Planning Director Darling stated that she had looked at other communities when looking at the proposed buffer areas which was how she determined that the Cub Foods location was too close to the middle school. She explained that she believed the high school was just over 1,000 feet from these locations. Commissioner Gorham stated that he thought the high school was about .7 miles away and explained that he was not crazy about high school kids being at Starbucks and the possibility that there would also be a cannabis retailer there as well. He stated that he had also taken a look at what other cities were doing and saw that some of the bigger cities were restricting signage and asked if the City could also do that. Planning Director Darling stated that the City can also restrict signage and explained that was one of the things that she had elected not to propose just so there were not two separate standards. She stated that the way it was currently proposed the businesses would be subject to the City’s regular signage restrictions. Commissioner Gorham stated that he had seen restrictions that called out that there be no cannabis-related imagery. Planning Director Darling asked Commissioner Gorham to let her know where he had seen that restriction and explained that she was concerned about content regulation. Commissioner Gorham stated that he had looked at Maple Grove, Bloomington, St. Paul, and Minneapolis and noted that he thinks that a few of them had restrictions on signage, particularly against the image of a cannabis leaf. Planning Director Darling reiterated that she would be very concerned about regulating content, 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 stated that the handout that the City received from the State said that they are able to limit them to 2 signs instead of 3 signs as allowed by the city, but it did not suggest any limitations on the content. Commissioner Gorham shared details from the research he had done for Maple Grove and what restrictions they had included. Planning Director Darling read aloud the language that they had received from the State that said, ‘cannabis businesses are permitted to erect up to 2 fixed signs on the exterior of the building or property of the business unless otherwise limited by the city sign ordinances’. She reiterated that this does not talk about limiting content and the City had just fixed that within their code and reiterated that she would talk to the City Attorney about it. There was consensus of the Commission to explore other possible sign limitations with the City Attorney. Commissioner Gorham asked for more information on why the Council did not want to enact a moratorium. He stated that he would also like to know what role Hennepin County would play in all of this too and if they would be managing the licensing. Planning Director Darling stated that the County would not be doing any of the licensing because that will be handled by the State Office of Cannabis Management. She stated that the City or the County, on the City’s behalf, can register the users and would be handling the inspections. She noted that this type of inspection is more involved that the inspections that the City would normally do. She stated that the State will get the licensing fee and whoever the registering body is would get separate registration fee and would also get a portion of the licensing fees in order to help cover the cost of inspections. Commissioner Gorham gave the example of the City receiving an abundance of applicants on Day 1 and how a determination would be made because there would only be 1 available spot in the City for this license. Planning Director Darling explained that the State will determine who gets the license, so the City would not have any input but noted that the State would send the licenses to the City to verify the zoning requirements. Commissioner Gorham asked if it would end up being an RFP-type situation where they do a call for interest, then screen them, and then give the City the best candidate. Planning Director Darling stated that they would go through all of their applicants and for those within the City, they would send those over to the City to review for zoning compliance and at that point the City would either sign off on them or not sign off on them depending on the details of the locations proposed. Commissioner Holker asked if the County had an inspection department already and asked if the City could contract with them to handle these inspections. Planning Director Darling explained that the County was still working on its regulations, but that was what the City was looking into pursuing. She noted that many of the smaller communities were looking to the County to provide those inspections and stated that it is the same as what is done with health inspections. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 7 of 14 Commissioner Gorham reiterated his question about the Council’s preference not to enact a moratorium. Planning Director Darling explained that because the City was looking at working with the County for the registrations, they would prefer that we have whatever enabling legislation in place before December and felt it was unnecessary to enact the moratorium because the licenses will not be issued before the end of August for the zoning amendments, or before the end of December for the registration of the businesses. Chair Eggenberger asked if the City can tax cannabis sales. Planning Director Darling stated that they cannot, but there could be a municipal pot shop. Commissioner Gorham asked if the City would require CCTVs. Planning Director Darling stated that they could not because that would be under the licensing regulations for security, so the State would be reviewing their setup. Commissioner Gorham asked what the City had in place to enforce public smoking of cannabis and noted that he assumed that they would not be able to smoke it in parks. Planning Director Darling stated that the City does not have a prohibition on having gummies, smoking cannabis, or smoking in the parks. Chair Eggenberger asked if there was a limitation such as a certain amount of feet from a school. Planning Director Darling stated that the City did not have those types of regulations. Chair Eggenberger asked if the City had regulations related to alcohol within a certain distance from schools. Planning Director Darling stated that there are not regulations that outlines a certain distance from a school, but they do have some regulations. She stated that she believes that alcohol in parks is extremely limited and thought that Badger Park was the only place the City has allowed some alcohol. Commissioner Huskins stated that he believed that was allowed by permit for a special event. Planning Director Darling read aloud from Section 902 which outlined the regulations related to alcohol and the City parks. Commissioner Gorham stated that he was concerned about people leaving the building and smoking cannabis products with high school kids being at a nearby building. Planning Director Darling stated that there was not anything in the City’s code that would prohibit someone from smoking their cannabis when they leave the building and driving down the road in their car because it is all handled by State statute for driving while impaired or intoxicated. She noted that the City does prohibit using or bringing illegal drugs into the park, but reminded the Commission that cannabis would not be illegal. Commissioner Gorham asked if it could be added to the language. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 8 of 14 Planning Director Darling stated that they could add some language and the Commission could make that recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Gorham asked the Commission how they felt about the possibility of restricting cannabis use in City parks and property. He asked if smoking cigarettes was allowed in City parks. Planning Director Darling confirmed that you can smoke cigarettes in the City parks. Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt that would limit the City’s ability to restrict smoking cannabis in the parks. Commissioner Gorham argued that if the City would limit the use of alcohol in City parks he questioned why they wouldn’t also limit the use of cannabis in the parks because it is also a controlled substance. Commissioner Holker asked if any other cities had that kind of limitation. Planning Director Darling stated that some other cities have that restriction for their parks. Commissioner Gorham stated that the City would be restricting the sale of it within 1,000 feet of a park he would think that limiting the use of it in the park would also make sense. Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt this was a good recommendation to make to the Council for their consideration. There was consensus of the Commission to recommend that the Council consider putting a restriction on smoking cannabis products in the City parks. Chair Eggenberger referenced Section 3, Subd. 4, 1, (3), (c), and asked what the difference was between a micro-business and a mezzo-business. Planning Director Darling read aloud the official definition of a micro-business and a mezzo- business. Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt it made more sense for the cannabis retailer to be at the Cub development or in the health center, but didn’t really want it close to the middle school kids. Chair Eggenberger stated that he did not think they had a choice because the State statute says that it cannot be within 1,000 feet of the school. Planning Director Darling clarified that the City cannot have the distance requirement be more than 1,000 feet, but they could choose to go less than that distance. She noted that a reduction in the distance requirements would mean that there would be more properties eligible for this type of business. Commissioner Gorham stated that they could still just limit it to one location. Planning Director Darling clarified that they could limit it to one retail location, but the rest could have more, such as cultivators, manufacturers, processes, labs, and distribution businesses which are unlimited. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 9 of 14 Chair Eggenberger asked if the City may want to consider reducing the size of the buffer. Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that the only benefit would be that it would have the potential to be further away from the high school. Commissioner Holker asked about the Cub Foods location and asked if they tightened this down if that was the only other location that would come into play. Planning Director Darling explained that she would have to go through the entire map again and do calculations. Commissioner Huskins asked if the City could have different distance restrictions from these businesses and parks and schools. Planning Director Darling stated that they could have different distance restrictions. Chair Eggenberger asked Commission Gorham if his idea to reduce the distances was essentially to force the location to be more likely to go in at Cub Foods. Commissioner Gorham stated that with his idea it would just not exclude the Cub Foods location and noted that it would not guarantee that is where a cannabis business would locate there. He explained that it may still end up on one of the 3 parcels outlined by staff. He stated that he felt like the targeted audience for this product may end up being high schoolers but he also did not want cannabis businesses near the parks either. Commissioner Huskins asked about the extent of the business and whether such businesses will be allowed to sell other products or services, for example, toilet paper or soft drinks. Planning Director Darling stated that another question to ask is whether they could add this to a tobacco store but noted that she did not have that information. She noted that insurance for cannabis-related businesses is complicated and explained that they are usually cash businesses because it is still an illegal product at the Federal level. She stated that for these reasons, she felt it may be challenging to run a business that was not specific to cannabis. Commissioner Huskins explained that his thought was that these businesses would want to attract customers in any way they can by selling other products like newspapers or magazines. He asked if this business model would allow for something like DoorDash or some other delivery service. Planning Director Darling stated that the cannabis products can be delivered from the business to someone’s home. Chair Eggenberger asked if liquor businesses have delivery services. Planning Director Darling confirmed that there are some liquor businesses that offer delivery. Commissioner Huskins asked if the City could restrict these businesses to having on-site-only sales. Planning Director Darling answered that they could not have that restriction. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 10 of 14 Commissioner Huskins stated the ordinance basically boils down to approving a location for such a business, but the business model that is used for vending their product would be up to the business. Chair Eggenberger questioned whether the State knew exactly what the business model would look like. Planning Director Darling stated that the State has a model ordinance that they have put together for communities if the City wanted to register the businesses themselves. Commissioner Gorham stated that at the end of the day, he still cannot believe that the City would drive these businesses to the locations right next to the high school. Chair Eggenberger stated that the one good thing about the proposed location is that it is really public and not tucked away in a corner somewhere. Planning Director Darling stated that something that may be helpful for the Commission to know is that you cannot sell or gift to people under 21 years of age, nor can you advertise or appeal to that market. She stated that the adult-use cannabis law is specifically for 21 years and older so the businesses would not be attracting a lot of high school kids. Chair Eggenberger asked if someone under 21 could enter the store. Planning Director Darling explained that she did not have that level of detail in her information. Commissioner Gorham gave the example of being the parent of a student at the Minnetonka High School who drives past the cannabis retailer in the City every day and noted that he would assume that they would be pretty upset about it, especially if their kid goes to Starbuck’s every day. He stated that he would imagine that they would ask why the only location Shorewood found for this business was located right next to the high school. He stated that he would also be pretty upset about it if he was the principal at the high school. Commissioner Huskins stated that in order for a cannabis business to locate here, one of the existing businesses would need to decide to leave and make the property available. Commissioner Gorham stated that, to him, this just seemed like a bad idea. He stated that he knows that the City cannot restrict these businesses coming to the City but to focus them on one site like this seems like it would be second guessed by people. Commissioner Huskins stated that the Cub Foods site is within 1,000 of the middle school, but asked about the exact distance and suggested that the City could pick a different distance. Chair Eggenberger stated that even if the City opened up a spot in the Cub Foods area it would not guarantee that the cannabis business would actually choose that spot. Commissioner Gorham noted that there are vacancies in the Cub Foods location. Commissioner Holker noted that the Cub Foods strip mall would be an easy place for someone to move into relatively quickly. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 11 of 14 Commissioner Huskins stated that they could not guarantee this location even if they opened it up as an option, but if they didn’t open it up as an option, then the businesses will have to go in the location near the high school. Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to know more about the linear feet to schools and parks in order to open up the possibility for the cannabis businesses to end up at Cub area or the health center. Chair Eggenberger asked if this item needed to go to the City Council on August 26, 2024. Planning Director Darling stated that it does need to go before the Council on August 26, 2024 because of the early licensing that is allowed. Commissioner Gorham stated that he hopes people understand his concern about possibly creating a legacy of putting a cannabis store right next to the high school. He asked if the City could say that it would be 1,000 feet from a park and a lesser distance from a school. Planning Director Darling stated that they could set different distances for schools and parks. She stated that she was looking at the Hennepin County map and explained that the middle school actually appeared on both the Hennepin County and Carver County maps. Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to know how the City could make the Cub area and the health center area eligible for cannabis business locations without totally messing up every other protected parcel in the City. Chair Eggenberger stated that he thinks they need to find out how far the middle school is from Cub Foods. Commissioner Gorham asked if staff could determine how far away the middle school was from Cub Foods. Chair Eggenberger suggested that while Planning Director Darling was checking on that they go ahead and open up the Public Hearing. He opened the Public Hearing at 8:13 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no one who requested to comment he closed the Public Hearing at 8:14 P.M. Planning Director Darling stated that her information shows the middle school at around 1,500 feet from Cub Foods and explained that it appeared that the Cub Foods property would qualify for a cannabis business. Chair Eggenberger stated that means that there were 2 locations where the cannabis businesses could go, the Cub Foods strip mall, or the area that has the Starbucks, that Planning Director Darling had already outlined for the Commission. Commissioner Gorham asked if they could also be at the dentist's if they called it a health use. Planning Director Darling explained that the dentist was not zoned C-1 because it was a PUD. She noted that she would plan to remeasure everything again to make sure it is accurate. Commissioner Gorham asked how they would be able to close the loop with that information. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 12 of 14 Planning Director Darling stated that if the Commission’s concern was that they were steering the cannabis businesses too close to the high school which may encourage those students to somehow purchase those products as part of a secondary sale, then they can make a recommendation for staff to look at options for reducing the buffer requirement from schools to allow more properties to qualify to reduce the likelihood that they would locate in these particular businesses. Commissioner Huskins stated that this preference would be to keep the buffer distance at 1,000 from schools. Commissioner Gorham stated that he agreed. Gorham moved, Huskins seconded, recommending approval of the Ordinance 607, “An Ordinance of the City of Shorewood to Amend the C-1 (General Commercial) District and Related Amendments to Regulate Cannabis Businesses”, with the additional recommendations to restrict content signage, if possible, restrict usage within City parks, and direct staff to review proximity in order to allow the Cub Foods development to qualify as a possible location for a cannabis business, so the City does not direct young adults towards a cannabis retailer near the high school. Motion passed 4/0. Commissioner Huskins pointed out some typographical errors within the staff report. Planning Director Darling reiterated that she would go back over all her measurements to make sure she hadn’t missed anything. 5. OTHER BUSINESS A. Discuss Amendments to R-3B Zoning District and Related Improvements Location: City-wide Applicant: City of Shorewood Planning Director Darling explained that staff has been working on incorporating the most recent input from the Commission and gave a brief overview of their recommendations. She explained that she had also added an amendment to the impervious surface regulations in order to allow greater amounts of coverage in this district. She noted that she had included photo examples in the staff report that depicted setbacks throughout the metro area and had also shown those setbacks on the three parcels in the City that would likely be rezoned to R-3B. Commissioner Huskins asked what the maximum impervious surface that would be allowed. Planning Director Darling stated that what she wrote up in the staff report was 66% for impervious surface coverage. Commissioner Huskins asked about the examples that were greater than 66% and if they would need a variance. Planning Director Darling stated that the example that exceeded 66% was from Tonka Bay which in Shorewood, would have needed a variance or a PUD to achieve that level of impervious surface coverage. Chair Eggenberger noted that something had to give because these lots are relatively small and 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 Commissioner Huskins stated that they would still have to consider where the water goes. Chair Eggenberger agreed but the applicant will have to have plans to address the water. Commissioner Huskins asked if the water management plans were something that was included in the building permit process. Planning Director Darling explained that they usually have some element shown on the plans that the Commission reviews, but may not be the exact final size or design of the stormwater feature. She referenced the concept PUD that the Commission had considered at their recent meeting which had 2 basins and an underground vault shown on their plans and noted that the recent marine sales application had also proposed an underground vault. Chair Eggenberger stated that he felt that in some cases the underground management system would be better than just having open basins. Planning Director Darling noted that she wasn’t sure that she would say ‘better’, but explained that you have to account for the increased amount of hard surface on every property. She stated that this a City requirement but also a watershed requirement and projects have to have rate and volume control and treatment. She stated that the City does have some underground vaults in the City and gave the example of one being under the parking lot at Cub Foods. Commissioner Huskins stated that once the City has this district defined, he felt that for every application that comes forward the Commission will be very dependent on the report that staff gives them about the impervious surface and the water management plans because no one on the Commission were water experts. Planning Director Darling stated that they are looking at impervious surface coverage in relation to the stormwater on every site that comes forward for consideration. She stated that if the Commission was uncomfortable with the CUP to increase the amount of impervious surface, they could also cut it off at 66% and if someone wanted to go higher than that they would need a variance which is a bit harder standard to meet than a CUP. She explained that the onus would be on the applicant to show why it would work if a variance was granted, rather than on the City to prove why it would not work. Chair Eggenberger stated that he liked that idea. Commissioner Huskins stated that he was not trying to put boulders in front of builders, but felt this was important and believed that the City would be well served by placing that burden onto the builder. Planning Director Darling noted that her copy of the staff report did not have the ordinance attached and asked if the Commission had received that portion of the packet. The Commission stated that they had not received the proposed ordinance. Planning Director Darling apologized that this was left out of the packet and stated that she would make sure that it was attached for the next meeting. She suggested that the Commission take another look at this in September and then plan to schedule the public hearing in October. 6. REPORTS CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 20, 2024 Page 14 of 14 • Council Meeting Report Planning Director Darling explained that Councilmember Zerby was ill tonight, so she would give the Council meeting update. She reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s recent meetings and answered Commission questions related to the discussion that took place among the Council. Planning Director Darling stated that the City had received 18 applications for the Planner position and interviews have been conducted with 6 of those individuals. Commissioner Huskins stated that he had been reading various things on-line that say that Shorewood’s codes are difficult for the average person to read and understand. He noted that he understands that there was a legal element to the code but asked if the City should elevate simplicity in the language. Planning Director Darling stated that she would like to improve the language, but she cannot guarantee that everyone will want to pick up the code book and read it. She stated that there are some complicated topics that have to be covered and gave the example of the sign code which has complicated regulations. Commissioner Holker asked if she was still scheduled to report to the Council on September 9, 2024, and noted that she believed that things had perhaps gotten moved around. She explained that she will not be in town for the Council’s August 26, 2024 meeting. Planning Director Darling stated that both of the agenda items needed to have a quick turn around time and suggested that perhaps someone else could step in and present on August 26, 2024. Commissioner Huskins volunteered to make the presentation on August 26, 2024. Upcoming Planning Commission Presentations to the Council:  August – Commissioner Huskins  September – Commissioner Gorham  October – Commissioner Holker  November – Commissioner Johnson  December – Chair Eggenberger • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated that at the next meeting, they would consider the ordinance for R-3B as a discussion item, an after-the-fact variance for a shed at the shoreline of Christmas Lake, and two subdivisions. 7. ADJOURNMENT Gorham moved, Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2024, at 9:08 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.