Loading...
9-17-2024 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 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: Commissioners Gorham, Huskins, Holker and Johnson; Planning Director Darling; and Council Liaison Zerby Absent: Chair Eggenberger 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Holker moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda for September 17, 2024, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  August 20, 2024 Planning Director Darling noted that she had received two e-mails earlier today that noted some typographic errors within the minutes and had made revisions. Gorham moved, Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2024, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 2 of 31 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 – PRELIMINARY PLAT, FINAL PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR ASAKENAS ADDITION Applicant: Audrius Asakenas Location: 6180 Cardinal Drive Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request to subdivide the property at 6180 Cardinal Drive into three lots. She reviewed the property location, topography of the parcel, Shoreland District regulations, zoning and land use designation of low density residential, utility plans for sewer and water, stormwater controls, right-of-way dedication plans, easements, tree removal plans and potential impacts. She explained that the biggest issue with this subdivision request was the proposal for less than required lot widths and frontage for the two southerly lots. She noted that as proposed, Lot 2 would have no direct frontage to a public street and Lot 3 would only have a small finger of frontage. She explained that the City requires 100 feet of lot width and the subdivision regulations require adequate street frontage for each lot. She stated that the applicant was proposing to provide access to each of the southerly lots via a shared private driveway with easements over the top of it. She explained that the regulations for a variance for a subdivision are different than a standard variance request and reviewed the criteria to be considered. She stated that this property was guided within the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential development which means three to five units per acre, which for this parcel would be challenging because of the 68 feet of topography change with the bluff in the middle. She explained that staff had concluded that the applicant had met the criteria for a variance application with their subdivision and was also recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions listed within the staff report. She stated that the City had received several e- mails about this application that were either attached to the report or had been distributed just prior to the meeting. Vice-Chair Huskins gave an overview of the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Commissioner Johnson stated that Planning Director Darling had stated that for traffic with this subdivision, the expectation would be that there would be 10 ingress and egress actions per day which would not be a problem and asked how staff had come to the conclusion that this would not be a problem. Planning Director Darling clarified that she had said that the difference in the number of trips that would be accessing the shared driveway on the south side would not be a substantial difference than what there would be now and additionally, if the property were to subdivide into two lots, with each lot having the required 100 feet along Cardinal Drive, it would be likely that those lots would have to access Cardinal Drive from the shared driveway which would again result in 20 trips because it was not functional to provide a driveway up and down the steep slopes through the middle of the property. She stated that, to her, having the variance or not, would not have much of a change on what would happen on the shared driveway on the south end of the site. Vice-Chair Huskins asked Planning Director Darling to display the plat and indicate the location of the current structure and driveway. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 3 of 31 Planning Director Darling reviewed the current location of the home and driveway. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if Planning Director Darling could tell them anything about the history of the driveway since it was non-conforming and did not have sufficient frontage. Planning Director Darling explained that the property, at present, was conforming because the zoning district requires 100 feet of lot width and adequate frontage to a public street. She noted that they are running the driveway on the south side of the property because of the steep slopes in the middle of the property. Vice-Chair Huskins asked about the driveway leading into Cardinal Drive and whether it conformed in terms of distance from other driveways. Planning Director Darling stated that it would not be conforming and noted that there was an existing private drive to the south located just off the property but noted that it was located within the City of Chanhassen. She explained that there were a number of homes that use it including one lot that is located within the City of Shorewood. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if that meant that there would be two private drives right on top of each other. Planning Director Darling explained that the City’s regulations defined them separately and stated that a shared driveway is a driveway that serves two homes, a private drive serves more than two homes. Commissioner Johnson stated that one lot has absolutely no frontage and asked how and why the City requirement was for 100 feet of frontage. Planning Director Darling stated that there are several single-family zoning districts and they regulate the size of the lot in order to provide, in some cases, more green space and identify which areas of the City can be developed with less green space. She explained that some zoning districts require 120 feet of frontage and this particular zoning district requires 100 feet of frontage. She noted that the width was typically measured at the front setback which is along the public road and this case, for this lot, that would mean that there is not a front setback, except as assigned through a variance application. Commissioner Gorham referenced the engineers report and noted that it has a lot of recommendations related to drainage and erosion control and asked how that would get resolved. Planning Director Darling stated that they would be resolved through revised plans. Commissioner Gorham asked how the Commission would know those things were resolved, if they recommended approval. Planning Director Darling stated that they would typically be resolved before staff would allow the recording of the Final Plat with Hennepin County. She noted that there are some conditions that they put before they get a home or permits for the home and in this case, since it is 3 lots, they had suggested that the applicant could provide the landscaping plan prior to each building permit rather than providing those details before recording the plat, but explained that the other conditions would have to be met before they recorded the plat. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 4 of 31 Commissioner Gorham stated that it looks like the applicant had revised their drawings a few times and asked if it would be fair to say that the comments from City Engineer Budde were okay to get them to this point. Planning Director Darling stated that they had given them previous comments and the applicant had altered their plans to meet those comments. She stated that the memo from City Engineer Budde was based on the revised plans. Commissioner Gorham asked what had brought it to the level of it not needing to be revised again. Planning Director Darling stated that the changes that engineering and staff had noted in the report were generally those that are fairly technical and were revisions that would be reviewed administratively. She reminded the Commission that the City has a specific amount of time that they can review a Preliminary and Final Plat, so with every subdivision there are a series of conditions that have to be met. Commissioner Gorham asked about the definition of a variance and noted that in some places it says ‘special and highly unique circumstances’ and others say ‘unusual hardship’. Planning Director Darling explained that was generally what the City’s code has in it and noted that the only difference is that the City code has, instead of ‘unusual hardship’, they have ‘extreme hardship’, which exceeds the State Statute requirement so they cannot require it. Commissioner Gorham asked if that was old or conflicting language. Planning Director Darling stated that it was part of the language in the current code that the City would be updating with help from a consultant in order to update the City’s subdivision ordinances. Commissioner Gorham asked if that meant that the Commission should interpret it using the State requirement or if it was open to their own judgement. Planning Director Darling explained that the State code would supersede in this case, so they cannot review it by ‘extreme hardship’ the way it is written into the City code. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if it was because of the topography of the property that it would be impossible to locate the three homes in a way where two of them could be accessed from the north off of Cardinal so the existing driveway would just continue to serve one home. Planning Director Darling stated that she would hate to use the word ‘impossible’ because there are times engineers can redesign area, but she would say that building a road that goes through the property and provides cul-de-sac access would be a really bad idea because it would have a terribly steep slope. She reminded the Commission that the bluff located in the middle of the property complicated things, but noted that there was also wetland nearby as well as a required buffer area. Commissioner Johnson asked about the trees and noted that it appears as though a pretty wooded lot would be going down to one that has about 22 little trees. Planning Director Darling stated that they would be removing about 50 trees and would replace them with 22 trees. She explained that in the City’s tree replacement policy says that the trees need to be 3 caliper inches for deciduous trees and 6 feet for conifers which means they will be a bit smaller. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 5 of 31 Commissioner Johnson asked if that meant that taking down the large trees and putting in the little trees was in conformance. Planning Director Darling stated that was in conformance. Commissioner Johnson asked where the new trees would be placed and also where the ones removed were located. Planning Director Darling reviewed the plans for tree removal. Commissioner Holker asked about the placement of the sewer line and if it would take down some of the hill when it is put in. Planning Director Darling stated that it would usually be directionally bored from two separate points. Commissioner Johnson stated that one of the neighbors had mentioned that there was damage to their property as a result of other homes being built next door and asked if the City could put in any conditions that would alleviate their concerns in this situation. Planning Director Darling stated that they can put something in, but that is typically a private issue and noted that, usually, the developers make amends. Commissioner Johnson stated that the e-mail that was submitted stated that the City had to get involved in order to make the developer cooperate and asked if the City could just put something in that was more proactive. Planning Director Darling reiterated that they could put something in the conditions if that was the direction from the Commission. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Audrius Asakenas, 6180 Cardinal Drive, stated that he was a builder, but also had Tom Goodrum, Moore Engineering, with him tonight in order to answer any questions the City may have about their request. Commissioner Holker reiterated her question regarding the sewer line and if it would be bored or trenched. Tom Goodrum, Moore Engineering, stated that typically when there is a slope like this it would be done with directional boring. He explained that they would work with City staff and the City Engineer on what would be the most appropriate way and noted that their purpose was to protect the steep slope. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan was looking for three homes on this site and noted that the site is actually large enough to accommodate more than that. He noted that there was a comment made about 10 trips earlier in the meeting and stated that he wanted to make it clear that 10 trips was an industry rule of thumb for any single family home. He noted that related to driveway separations, in most ordinances they are allowed to have a driveway 5 feet from the property line so having 10 feet between driveway in most cities is considered reasonable and acceptable but acknowledged that he did not know the specifics from Shorewood’s ordinance. He stated that related to the 100-foot width they were trying to use the existing driveway, preserve the slope, and also try to meet the character and intent of the City CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 6 of 31 codes. He explained that Lots 2 and 3 were over 100 feet wide. He stated that the previous comments from the City Engineer were mostly because their first plans had shown one retaining wall on Lot 1 instead of the split wall that is shown now. He stated that they know that there will be retaining walls down there but do not know how big or how many may be needed because the home on the site will be custom designed. He noted that most of the of the other comments received were pretty standard engineering comments. He stated that their goal is to minimize any grading and a swale would technically work, but if the City had more comfort in the use of piping, they would support that and reiterated that they will work with the City staff on what will be the most appropriate way to bring stormwater down the side of the bluff/slope. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if the applicant understood the recommendations that City staff had included in the staff report. Mr. Goodrum stated that they understood them and reiterated that most of them were pretty standard comments frequently seen in the metro area and noted that they had worked with Bolton & Menk in other cities and would be happy to work with them on this project. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would have any problem with an additional condition that covered not damaging any nearby properties or driveways. Mr. Goodrum stated that they could include that in the conditions but noted that the work would be done by contractors, but assured the Commission that they did not want to damage anyone’s property and would be more than happy to fix any damages that may occur. Vice-Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Nancy Feller, 22535 Murray Street, asked where the driveway for Lot 1 would be located. She stated that one of their concerns is that with Cardinal Drive being such a small street and the only other house going up the drive from there is on the right side and it is difficult to see the cars coming out of there. She explained that she was hoping that there would not be a driveway between Murray Street and the top of the hill on Cardinal because it is very steep there. She stated that they were also concerned with run-off and noted that a new culvert was just put in at their property but there has still been water sitting there. Mr. Goodrum reviewed the driveway location using the grading plans and explained the reason for its placement. He noted that they wanted to have some separation from Murray in order to make sure there was enough space for people to come down, but noted that it could slide anywhere along Cardinal south of that corner. He stated that they had tried to move it as far north as possible, but were open to adjusting it, if the City felt that having a greater distance from Murray was the safest place for a driveway. Mark Sass, 22690 Murray Street, stated that he had owned this property for 40 years. He stated that Cardinal Lane is really narrow and does not have curbs but noted that the City did do some work on the drainage issues at the bottom to get the water to drain to the pond. He stated that this had been a problem causing flooding across the street both ways, so he was not sure how that would affect the house in that area because the grading is pretty steep. He stated that he did not realize that the City allowed flag lots and asked why they couldn’t make a public drive or something instead of having a shared driveway. He asked about the setbacks for a home that would be totally landlocked and what the rules and regulations would be in the City. He stated that he had concerns about traffic, no frontage, utilities that would be driven through private property in order to get to another private property and explained that it seems like this request CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 7 of 31 doesn’t meet the City’s requirements because it needs a variance. He stated that these proposed lots are also going to be smaller than all the lots in the area and explained that he was not here trying to fight anyone or to make an enemy, but he was a contractor for 35 years and, in the past, he did not think something like this would have ever been considered. He stated that it just seems like there are a bunch of things piled up on this request, with everything being a challenge and asked why the City would even consider approving it. Tyson Barrett, 6204 Cardinal Avenue, Chanhassen, stated that he lives on the shared driveway in Chanhassen right next to this property. He explained that his biggest concern was having that many residents on two shared driveways that are right next to each other. He stated that it has already been difficult for things like, recycling week, to have that amount of bins out at the street from the three homes on the shared driveway and the one existing driveway. He stated that when all is said and done, they could end up having 12 containers in this location. He stated that there were small children in the area so he was also concerned about extra congestion this may bring. Vice-Chair Huskins closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. He asked Planning Director Darling if there had been any issued raised by the people that staff would like to respond to. Planning Director Darling stated that for the question related to drainage at the street, the City Engineer was recommending that they put in curb and gutter in order to direct the water down the street and into the new ditch that was constructed to ensure there is no additional pooling or destruction of the edge of the roadway. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there may be water that may be able to make it across the street. Planning Director Darling stated that was not raised as a concern and noted that she would assume that there was a crown in the street, but explained that she would follow up with a specific question on that. She stated that flag lots were generally not approved in the City, which is why a variance was needed. Commissioner Johnson asked for an explanation of a flag lot. Planning Director Darling drew a picture of what type of lot would be considered a flag lot. She stated that she had already tried to address the concerns about traffic during her initial presentation. She noted that there were concerns raised about the lot sizes and the frontage and explained that the property was zoned R-1C and they were not proposing a change in zoning. She stated that the proposed lot sizes were more than what was required in the R-1C district and noted that setbacks were also not an issue as long as the City approves the variance request as long as they set the front of the lot to the south end for those 2 lots. She reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan guides this for between three and five homes on the parcel which is another reason to consider granting the variance request. She stated that she did not have a solution for the concern raised by Mr. Barrett for the recycling bins and noted that she also had not heard about conflicts between the private drive and the shared driveway. She stated that both of them are pretty low traffic generators and was not sure if Chanhassen had a limit on the number of homes allowed on a private drive the way Shorewood currently does. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he thought there had been something in Planning Director Darling’s information that there would need to be some document put in place that anticipates conflicts with the use of the shared driveway. Planning Director Darling explained that as a planner, she did not love shared driveways because some neighbors end up not getting along well and gave examples of someone being obstinate CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 8 of 31 and blocking the driveway or blow their snow on the other’s drive to irritate each other. She stated that if there was another way to design this without a shared driveway she would recommend it. In this situation, because of the bluff in the center of the property, it was not practical. Commissioner Johnson asked how it would work if the City was providing fire and emergency service to someone on a shared driveway in a situation where the neighbors hated each other. Planning Director Darling stated that was a reason to make sure that there was an easement in place over the top so that there is some recourse for the other property owner. She stated that she usually has them identify some means of staying out of the court system to settle any disputes over maintenance or the financial side of the shared driveway. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a way that the garbage container situation could be addressed. Planning Director Darling stated that she had not put anything in place previously for subdivisions and noted that perhaps they could narrow the driveway to ensure that there would be room on each side for the containers. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to have something included that would address this issue. She read aloud a comment from one of the e-mails about the City’s wish to increase housing density that the zoning regulations should be changed in order to have a more thoughtful plan for redevelopment of the entire neighborhood and asked if that was something that could be done because what seemed to be happening was that people were addressing a one-off kind of situation. Planning Director Darling stated that it could be done but noted this was not an area where the City was assuming higher density and reiterated that nothing had been changed for this area and has the same land use designation that it has had for decades. She explained that some applications are reactionary which means the City reacts to what is submitted. She noted that the City could do a study in order to look at the broader neighborhood, but that would mean that if someone wanted to develop they would likely have to acquire properties which would be voluntary. Commissioner Gorham noted that the Commission did not see a lot of subdivision requests and stated that, to him, this feels like it comes down to the interpretation of ‘unusual hardship’. He asked if it was unusual that the site was steep for Shorewood and if the thought was that it was unusual enough that the City should allow all the machinations that are required to try to fit three homes on the lot. He asked if that meant that every site like this in the City would get three properties if they were the same size. He stated that he felt the site would be a mess with everything planned and will look dramatically different that what is there now. He read aloud plans for tree removal and some of the conditions in the engineer’s memo related to drainage. He reiterated his earlier question about whether this situation and explained that he did not think this situation as really that unusual. He stated that he did not feel that everyone would be able to get a subdivision and noted that while this was a tough lot, there were lots just like it all over the City. He stated that he did not feel the City should bend their ordinances in order to accommodate wedging three lots onto this property. He reiterated that he did not think this was really an unusual hardship and noted that he also looks at the loss of trees and the change in the neighborhood as being impactful to the community. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 9 of 31 Commissioner Holker stated that Commissioner Gorham had used the word ‘wedging’ a few times and according to the code they are not actually wedging 3 lots onto this parcel, if you ignore the frontage. Commissioner Gorham stated that he would agree that the lots were well sized but to drain the lots there is all sorts of things that need to happen like retaining walls, swales, and would also need to remove essentially every tree. He stated that the whole design has been highly engineered in order to get 3 lots on this parcel. Commissioner Holker stated that she felt that anytime you are going to develop and get three lots on a piece of property you will see massive trees go down. She stated that she has seen that happen when any kind of lot is developed but noted that whether she liked it or not would be another question. She stated that she believed that this was within the landowner’s rights and explained that her biggest challenge with the request was having no frontage on the third lot. She stated that the code says that they can develop three lots on this property, so she would depend on staff with regard to the water issues because she cannot weigh on those details. Commissioner Gorham agreed and noted that was the engineer’s job for the City. Commissioner Johnson stated that she believed what Commissioner Gorham was talking about was whether this application met the requirements of a variance. She stated that the question was whether there were highly unique circumstances or conditions that are not common to other properties that would deprive the property owner of reasonable or minimum use of the land. Commissioner Holker stated that was where she disagreed even though she understood the point that was being made. Commissioner Gorham stated that the applicant was saying that this was so unusual which was why they had to use this reasoning in order to justify the access. Commissioner Johnson read aloud a portion of the variance requirements where it was noted that this type of variance had been allowed for several neighboring lots and asked for clarity about what that comment meant. Planning Director Darling explained that what she was referring to was the applicant’s justification of their request. She stated that the applicant had pointed out a number of lots on the aerial photo that have less frontage than is required but noted that many of the lots referenced were developed some time ago so there may not have been many rules in place at the time and shared examples from homes on the south side of Galpin Lake. Vice-Chair Huskins explained that for him, the lack of frontage is a big issue. He stated that he does not find it necessary to describe this property as unique to any other property in the City and is simply a unique application for what the property owner wishes to do with the property. He stated that, by code, they can fit three homes on the property and are not asking for any variances for setbacks or lot size. He noted that he was concerned about the proximity of this driveway with the adjacent neighborhood’s driveway and also the safety/practicality of everyone putting out their trash bins. He asked if the timing was the same for pick-up in Chanhassen and Shorewood or if they would be done on different days. He stated that he would like to see something included in the recommendations to present a solution to that potential issue before final approval. He stated that he has confidence in the City’s Planning and Engineering Departments that whatever may get approved would be sufficient to take care of the water issues. He stated that other than having CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 10 of 31 the extra concerns and desire for a condition related to the potential driveway issues, he would vote in favor of this request. Commissioner Johnson read aloud language from the staff report that stated that the variance was to correct inequities resulting from the unusual hardship limited to topography, soils or other physical factors of the land. She stated that she doesn’t understand because when you buy the property you know what you have and questioned if they were now claiming that it was unusual and is a hardship. She asked whether having steep slopes meant that it was unusual topography and represented a hardship. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that it may be as simple as a homeowner purchasing a property because of the attributes of the property for a single family residence, and then life or circumstances change and were now considering other options for the use of the property. He stated that he did not see it as a burden on the part of the homeowner to be held accountable for the attributes of the property throughout the life cycle of their use of it. Commissioner Holker stated that she liked the suggestions made by Vice-Chair Huskins regarding the possible congestion at the two driveways and explained that she would also be voting in favor of this request. Commissioner Gorham asked Vice-Chair Huskins what he felt was so unusual about this situation. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that to him, there is the right for there to be three lots on this parcel and in exploring the potential locations of the homes/driveways. He stated that the owner has the right to explore this possibility and he has been persuaded that if you are going to subdivide this property they have selected the most reasonable and possibly the only locations on the property, given the unusual circumstances of this particular property with the grading, bluff and the slope. He stated that if this were different property that did not have those constraints, then it may or may not be something he would support. He stated that he felt the applicant was providing the most appropriate solution that would provide them with the opportunity to subdivide the property. Commissioner Gorham stated that Planning Director Darling’s report said that staff was recommending approval based on the steep slopes, but noted that there were steep slopes all over the City, so that would not be ‘unusual’. Mr. Goodrum, stated that there has been a lot of discussion about the uniqueness and the slope of this property but thinks they are missing the point that half of this site is a bluff and was something that could not be touched. He stated that they could engineer things so they would be able to touch the steep slopes, but this site has the bluff area that is protected by the Shoreland District. He explained that the interpretation of the variance requirements related to topographical issues, it was the bluff area that brought them to the position and why they were coming forward with the proposed design. He stated that they believe that this is the best plan to suit this lot to get the three lots, but also be as environmentally sensitive as they can. Holker moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat, Final Plat And Variance Request For Asakenas Addition for Applicant Audrius Asakenas at 6180 Cardinal Drive, subject to the conditions included in the staff report and the additional condition related to refrain from damaging nearby properties, and further investigation of the possible congestion at the proposed driveway near the Chanhassen driveway. Motion passed 3-1 (Gorham opposed) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 11 of 31 Vice-Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 8:33 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. B. Minor Subdivision and Variance Applicant: Tony and Amy Denman Location: 26275 Smithtown Road Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the minor subdivision and variance request for property located at 26275 Smithtown Road. She reviewed the property location, existing conditions, background history, and explained that they were proposing to split the lot in two and noted that the variance request was because the southerly lot would only have 22 feet of frontage along Smithtown Road. She noted that the plans call for removal of 70 ash trees on the site that would need to be removed regardless of the subdivision because of Emerald Ash Borer. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan guides this property for minimum density residential which is up to one unit/acre and this site is 2.38 acres so they could have one or two lots on this parcel. She explained that the proposal is to access both lots from Smithtown Road from private driveways and outlined details of the variance request related to lot width. She noted that staff was recommending approval of the minor subdivision and the variance request, subject to the conditions included in the staff report. She stated that the City had received a number of letters from the public that included some questions and suggested that at the end of the Public Hearing she go through and answer some of the questions that were raised. Commissioner Gorham asked how the intermittent creek created the L-shape of the lot. Planning Director Darling explained that the creek made it challenging to access the property to the rear and used an aerial photo to help show the area more clearly. Vice-Chair Huskins asked about the existing property that fronts Smithtown Road and what the total distance was of the existing lot. Planning Director Darling stated that the total distance for the existing lot was a little over 142 feet. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if the 22 feet that was being proposed for the driveway would allow the rest of the property to conform with the frontage requirements. Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and explained that of the northerly of the two proposed lots would conform because it would have 120 feet of lot width at the front setback and also met the square footage requirement. Commissioner Holker asked about the distance between the existing home and the new driveway. Planning Director Darling stated that the distance between the existing home and the new driveway would be about 20 feet. Vice-Chair Huskins invited the applicant to address the Commission. Amy Denman, 26275 Smithtown Road, noted that her father-in-law Rick Denman with the Charles Cudd Company had been helping them with their application and could help answer any technical questions that may arise. Ms. Denman explained that she was from England and she and her husband had moved from there to Los Angeles before settling in Shorewood about four years ago. She stated that they moved here in order to be closer to family and also to have a better neighborhood and school options for their children. She stated that they would love to build a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 12 of 31 new home on the back of their property and believed that the variance they were requesting would not impact any of the nearby residents or the community. She noted that Shorewood is a very sought after place to live, but has very few lots to build on so this subdivision would allow another family to move to the City and enjoy all the benefits that Shorewood has to offer. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if Ms. Denman knew the square footage of Parcel A and Parcel B. Ms. Denman stated that Parcel A was just over 40,000 square feet and Parcel B was around 63,000 square feet. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there had been any consideration for a different configuration for the driveway. Ms. Denman stated that she did not believe so because their property sits right in the middle of that piece of the street frontage. Vice-Chair Huskins explained that he was only asking because of the idea of having just one driveway off Smithtown Road that could serve both parcels. Ms. Denman explained that there was an existing structure and would it be close to their neighbors house which is why they had the idea of having the driveway on the eastern side because they felt it would cause the least disturbance. Rick Denman, 5885 Glencoe Road, explained that the reason that they felt the driveway worked best where they were proposing it because it would not impact any other neighbors in terms of traffic and would serve as its own private driveway. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that conceptually there could be a shared driveway so it would conform with the requirements. Mr. Denman stated that he felt it would be the same whether it was on the right or the left side of the parcel and that a variance would still be needed. He stated that one of the neighbors had their attorney from Larkin and Hoffman send a letter to the City with information that was incorrect and explained that there was a second letter that had apologized for the mistake. He asked if the City had received the second letter. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that the City had received the second letter. Commissioner Holker stated that Ms. Denman had stated that they had made improvements to the existing home and asked if they had considered tearing it down and then building on the back portion of the lot. Ms. Denman stated that they felt it would be a shame to tear it down because it is a nice house, well-built, and clad in cedar. She noted that just one family had lived in it prior to their purchase of it and reiterated that it was a really nice home. Vice-Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 9:12 p.m. John Hasselbalch, 26350 Peach Circle, stated that they are directly south of this property. He noted that his attorney had sent the letter and then acknowledged the mistake. He stated that he and his wife had also sent a letter to the City outlining the reasons that they were opposed to this request. He explained that tonight he wanted to broach the subject of the water table in the City CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 13 of 31 and whether their plans to cut out 48 mature trees, recontour the property, and put on a new home would change the water table. He explained that they would like the City to ask for a soil hydrologist to look at this proposal in order to see how it would impact them because they believe it may potentially negatively impact them and their property. He stated that their sump pump does not run, but their neighbor to the south has one that runs frequently. He explained that their other issue was the trees because losing 48 mature trees after the City had already come through and clear cut a swatch through the woods to put in piping, was clearly a negative impact to them. He stated that between the City’s actions and this potential action, the woods would be gone and reiterated that they would like a soil hydrologist to study the proposal. Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, stated that his property was on the southeast corner of the proposed project’s new property. He stated that he bought his home 13 years ago with woods all around and had no indication that they would lose the woods or the habitat for all the animals. He stated that in a short span of time they have lost 5 acres and close to 1,000 trees on their west, close to 400 trees during the process of the City installing a drainage pipe behind the homes, and now they are faced with losing even more trees to their north with this proposed subdivision. He stated that even the ash trees are playing a substantial role in absorbing ground water and noted that there is a very high watertable in the area. He stated that he had just had some trees planted in his back yard and noted that when they dug down 4 feet they hit water. He explained that the Smithtown Ponds project has not helped their water table issue and has hurt it. He stated that he has lived in Shorewood for 40 years so he has seen what happens downstream as well. He asked if he would be allowed to address the Commission again after his questions had been answered to add any follow-up comments. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that as long as they keep the public meeting open, Mr. Yelsey would have the opportunity to speak again. Mr. Yelsey asked that the Commission hold some time for him following the answers to his questions. He explained that they have been severely impacted by the Smithtown Ponds project, and the cut through. Now the area will again be impacted by this proposal if the City approves the loss of additional trees and habitats. He stated that he had 22 turkeys on his property today that he believed lived in the woods that are part of this property. He stated that there are rules that the City has for zoning that need to be followed but, to him, there is more than just numbers and what the ordinances say, because there is also damage to the ecology, environment, streams, hydrology, and nearby basements that may be possible. He stated that one of his issues is the abutment of this driveway and the proposed subdivision with Smithtown Ponds and outlined some of the reasons that this concerned him. He noted that the creek itself was not an unusual circumstance and explained that he loved that the previous developer recognized the value of the creek which was flowing more fully in the past until the City interacted with it and artificially reduced the flow of the creek. He stated that developer had constructed the homes along Strawberry Lane in concert with the creek and left it alone. He stated that he felt that this creek was very important to the entire area and felt that this proposal would cause even more damage to the flow. He noted that there has also been damage done to the Freeman Park creek which was currently not even running. He stated that he reiterated that rather than being unusual, the people who had originally developed the property appreciated the creek and laid out their plans accordingly. He asked how close the driveway would be to the sidewalk at Smithtown Ponds. He asked if the City had done a study about the impact of this potential development on the flow of the creek. He asked if the City had studied the hydrology of the area and taken a look at what impact the development may have, especially with taking out this number of trees because they take a lot of water out of the ground. He noted that he had not seen anything included that addressed impervious surface for the new lot and would like to see those numbers. He asked if the City had taken a look at visibility from the neighbors, particularly from Peach Circle. He stated CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 14 of 31 that he would like to know if they would be losing what they had originally bought their homes for with hundreds of mature trees buffering them. He stated that buffers are required for streams and asked if the City had looked at the regulations from the DNR, the Army Corps of Engineers. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He stated that he felt that the City should be considering what the overall impact would be to the nearby residents, their quality of life, and private enjoyment of their property. Ann Straka-Leland, 5825 Strawberry Lane, stated that the property being discussed was, at one point, adjacent to her property, but there was now a new home in between. She stated that she was in favor of this request and noted that she felt the City needed to make more room for young families in the community. She stated that the trees that are there are not old growth forest because there was a lot of farmland in the area prior to 1968 when this area was developed. She noted that she felt what was being proposed was responsible and felt that the Denman’s had done a great job of doing their due diligence and making sure the property would be developed sustainably and respectfully. Vice-Chair Huskins closed the Public Hearing at 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Holker stated that she felt it would be good to get answers to some of the questions that were raised prior to the Commission holding their discussion. Planning Director Darling noted that some of the questions asked she would defer to the applicant. She stated that a question was raised related to the water table and if the City would require a hydrologist to review the plans. She explained that the City required that the lowest floor elevation of the new home has to be 4 feet above any observed water in the ground table and also has to be 2 feet above any historic evidence of groundwater. She stated that those are rather new regulations for the City and have been applying them as developments come in which means that there are fewer basements going in that may affect the ground water in the area. She stated that there was also mention of negative impacts to the area from the tree loss and noted that there will be a considerable number of trees removed, and as she stated earlier there would be more trees removed regardless of whether this subdivision is approved or not because of the Emerald Ash Borer that is present. She stated that there were concerns shared by another resident about the number of trees removed in the area, the water table and the belief that Smithtown Ponds has increased the ground water, the overall ecology of the wildlife in the area. She stated that from watching construction projects, she can tell them that animals depart during construction and come back after the homes are in place. She stated that if that were not the case, there would not be any animals in the area because this was all part of a previous subdivision. She stated that this individual had also expressed concerns about how close the new driveway would be to the trail but she did not know the measurement off the top of her head, but may be able to calculated it by reviewing the plans more closely. She stated that she had the City Engineer do a review of the development and he was not concerned about the stream flow and noted that they were proposing an infiltration basin that would overflow into the creek which is an acceptable outlet. She explained that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Army Corps of Engineers would also be reviewing the plans to see if there were any impacts proposed to the creek, if they chose to apply their jurisdiction to the review which would occur prior to recording the subdivision. She stated that there was also a question about impervious surface coverage which is something that is typically included in her reports, but this is a concept house plan, so they are limited to 33% coverage and noted that the applicant had assumed a certain amount of impervious surface in order to provide the drainage calculations to the City. She stated that related to the concerns raised about assurance that their views would be protected is something that she cannot guarantee or require, because property owners can make changes to their property, such as putting up fencing or clear cutting their trees and noted that the City does not have a lot of control CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 15 of 31 over these types of things. She stated that the tree preservation ordinance is used when subdivisions occur which does require some restitution for when the trees are removed. She referenced the questions from the letters that had been submitted and suggested that she take this time to answer those. Vice-Chair Huskins asked about the impervious surface measurements and whether it not being included in the report was because it wasn’t necessary because the applicants were not asking for a variance. Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and noted that they would be limited to 33% of the total lot area and explained that the long driveway would be included and would eat up much of their impervious surface coverage, which will limit the size of the home and amount of impervious surface that they can put on the remainder of the property. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if impervious surface was a non-issue for the Commission tonight related to the issue under consideration. Planning Director Darling stated that the applicants were not asking for a variance and noted that she usually looks to provide that information and believed that it was submitted in their materials, but she did not have it in front of her at the moment. She stated that Mr. Yelsey had submitted a letter and his comments tonight essentially repeated those that were shared in the letter. She stated that there was a letter from the Corsons who shared concerns about construction noise but there was not anything the City can do about regular construction noise. She noted that they had also shared concerns about the diminished look and feel of the area but reiterated that she could not guarantee that the neighboring woods would be kept or that property owners would not make changes to their lot or home. She noted that Mr. Hasselbalch had submitted a letter that had a question about whether the City required 20 feet of frontage to subdivide a property and the answer was ‘no’ and noted that it was the reason for the variance request because the City requires 120 of frontage in this particular district. She explained that when she says frontage she means lot width as measured at the front setback. She noted that Mr. Hasselbalch was concerned that the property had already been subdivided and platted as one lot, and had a sewer stubbed in the street at Smithtown Road. She stated that more sewer connections can be added into the existing mains and has happened across the City when new homes are built. She noted that Mr. Hasselbalch stated that he had reviewed plans that had Jylund Homes written on them, but was not sure where that reference was located nor was she familiar with that company. She explained that the sewer and utilities would be located under Pebble Creek and noted that the trucks would have to use the proposed driveway because that would be their only access to the property. She stated that Mr. Hasselbalch had also raised questions about the tree preservation ordinance and it if were merely symbolic. She explained that she did not believe that it was symbolic and providing the required amount of trees has caused some financial pain to developers throughout the City. Commissioner Holker asked if the homeowner wanted to clear a ton of trees, if they would still have to do the replacement, even if they did not build a new home. Planning Director Darling stated that the only time that someone has to provide restitution for removing trees off of your own property is when you have a significant construction project, such as a new home or if they were building an oversized garage. She stated that there are diseased trees on the property that will have to be removed regardless of whether this project moves forward and if they wanted to remove more trees, they are their trees, so they could remove them as they saw fit. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 16 of 31 Commissioner Johnson noted that one of the trees is an oak tree that the City owned and asked why that tree had to come down. Planning Director Darling answered that it would be damaged during construction and noted that there would have to be some restitution provided to the City for removing one of their trees. She referenced the letter received from Larkin Hoffman and explained that she would respectfully disagree with his review of this request, because he used the criteria from the zoning ordinance and not the subdivision ordinance. She stated that she would go through item 4 from this letter where he pointed out that residential driveways must adhere to a 5-foot side yard setback and noted that the driveway is a little bit close to the side property line, so the Commission could include a condition in their resolution to require it to be moved over. She noted that the City Engineer has looked over the location of the driveway and having it within the drainage and utility easements would be unavoidable in this situation. She stated that the applicant had provided an additional easement on the northerly parcel that would allow for snow storage on that side of the property but also allow for separate maintenance of the driveway without effecting the first parcel but they will need some additional room to maintain the culvert under the driveway. Vice-Chair Huskins asked how close the proposed driveway would be to the trail. Planning Director Darling reiterated that she would have to look up those details later when she had time to review the plans. She stated that the other issue brought up by the Larkin Hoffman attorney was that a property is only allowed one driveway per 120 feet of frontage and she would say that is partially true. She explained that all properties are allowed to have a driveway in order to allow access which is what their ordinance says and noted that it was actually saying that they only get 1 driveway access per each 120 feet of frontage, but all properties were allowed to have at least 1 driveway on their property. Commissioner Holker asked the applicant to address the question raised about impervious surface. Mr. Denman clarified that they have a proposed home that is essentially a worst-case scenario in terms of the footprint of the home. He reminded the Commission that the back lot was 63,000 square feet, and 33% of that would be over 20,000 square feet and noted that he did not think they would even come close to that amount of impervious surface, including the driveway. Vice-Chair Huskins asked Mr. Yelsey if he would like to address the Commission again as he had requested during the public hearing. He re-opened the Public Hearing at 9:46 p.m. and noted that he would like to grant Mr. Yelsey up to 5 minutes to address the Commission now that he has heard the answers to his questions. Mr. Yelsey stated that he was still awaiting answers on a few items, such as the DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules. He asked how the City would proceed without having the information from them on how they will deal with this project. He stated that he felt that notifications to those agencies should have occurred quite some time ago. He asked what rules were in play for the basin, watershed, buffers, contamination with sediment, cause of non-flow for the creek, and the characterization of the area as a wetland. He stated that the water table is a very important issue for the area and noted that they had done drilling for Smithtown Ponds and when the first holes were drilled, they filled with water almost immediately, which he felt showed that the ponds were not necessarily for stormwater alone and are also due to ground water. He explained that he felt that they put pressure to force the water up into the nearby homes and reiterated that he felt an analysis of that will confirm that they have been CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 17 of 31 negatively impacted by that area and noted that there was still standing water right in the cut behind this particular property. He stated that he felt that the proposed roadway would be very close to Smithtown Ponds pathway and would be visible from the pathway along with the home. Vice-Chair Huskins closed the Public Hearing at 9:50 p.m. Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant had submitted a wetland delineation for the creek and their delineator found that the creek did not meet the criteria for a wetland She stated that the City required that they show the delineations and information, but noted that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was the LGU for wetland impacts so they will have to provide that information to them for a more robust review of the information. She explained that she had submitted that information along with the subdivision information as a courtesy to the watershed and they did not provide comments back other than to let her know that it would be the standard permits. She stated that it was similar with the Army Corps of Engineers and noted that she did not send them courtesy notices and explained that the applicant would be responsible for acquiring the necessary permits and working with them. She stated that if there is no wetland, City ordinances do not require any buffers. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if, in general, for any application, there were findings, recommendations, and permits required that protected the integrity of the codes and use of the property. He stated that the applicant would still be subject to taking the risk that a finding may occur from one of those entities that change their mind on whether they wish to proceed or not. Planning Director Darling gave the example of the Commission recommending approval of the variance request which the Council also approved. She explained that the City cannot authorize them to do work until they have the other necessary permits in hand from other agencies. Commissioner Johnson stated that in one of the comments there was a point made about the driveway impeding the safety of walks and bikers entering or exiting and asked if there was a sidewalk along that area that the driveway would cross. Planning Director Darling stated that Smithtown Road has a trail on the south side, so this driveway would have to cross it. She explained that was the reason that she had mentioned the condition about removal of vegetation from around the driveway connection area in order to ensure that they have a better view for both sides of the trail. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there was a requirement for any landscape buffer between the easement and the trail. Planning Director Darling stated that there was not a requirement for any landscape buffer in that location. She noted that because this was a variance, the City could ask them to put something in. She noted that they could be asked to plant more trees on the City property in the area. She stated that she does not have the exact distance between the driveway and the trail and would have to pull out the actual project files to find that information. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he felt that there may be some value in that approach. Commissioner Holker stated that she agreed. Commissioner Johnson asked about the statement made in one of the conditions about consideration of revising the tree preservation plan to indicate fewer trees to be removed, and explained that she would be in favor of this, but was also in favor of restitution. She stated that CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 18 of 31 she was hoping that they would not actually have to take down the City’s oak tree and asked if the City could make that a bit stronger rather than just ‘consider revising’ it. Planning Director Darling reviewed the language from the tree preservation ordinance and noted that she would recommend that they cut back on some of the proposed grading because she believes that they have shown the maximum amount of disturbance on the site so they have some leeway to pull it back a bit in order to save more trees. Commissioner Johnson suggested that they change the language to ‘attempt to revise the tree preservation plan’ because it would be more of action rather than just thinking about it. Commissioner Holker stated that the reason that she had asked about tearing the house down was not because she was advocating for it, but to point out that somebody could buy that property, tear the house down and build a house on the back side of the property without any variances. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that one of the themes that the Commission heard during the public hearing was related to visibility from the nearby properties and asked the applicant how they felt about creating a landscaping buffer on the south side of the proposed plans as well as along the east side along the driveway. Mr. Denman stated that for the trees that they will be required to plant based on the tree preservation ordinance, he would be more than happy to work with the City to figure out the best place for those to be placed. He stated if they felt the best place would be a buffer towards the back, they would be open to that but noted that along the trail corridor he was not sure how many trees they would have to plant to provide a buffer, and noted that, in his opinion, that may be a bit of overkill. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that the buffering along the trail may not need to be something that would completely block the trail. Commissioner Gorham stated that he had previously asked Planning Director Darling about the connection between the creek and the variance and was told that the creek had created the L- shaped lot configuration. He stated that the creek created 63,000 square feet but the language in the report says that the variance was to correct inequities and he would say that the creek was actually creating a benefit because it created so much space for them. He stated if you go back to the previous item when they were discussing slope and the bluff were considered the inequities and, in this situation, they were traversing the creek fairly easily. He stated that he did not feel that the creek has created any real hardship and had just given them a lot that would be above the minimum lot area. He stated that he was not seeing that there were actually inequities that needed to be corrected or were an unusual hardship. He stated that, to him, this was just an average L-shaped lot and questioned whether the City would grant every L-shaped lot that has more than 40,000 square feet the ability to subdivide. Commissioner Holker stated that, in her mind, a lot of the objections have to do with visibility and tree cover. She stated that whether or not the variance was granted did not necessarily prevent that from happening because they could clear the trees off the lot without any permission or they could sell the property and someone could tear down the house. She stated that she could acknowledge what Commissioner Gorham was saying, but explained that this was one of the things she kept going back to, because the trees could go away under lots of different circumstances. Commissioner Gorham asked what Commissioner Holker was making an argument for. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 19 of 31 Commissioner Holker explained that her gut was telling her to go ahead and approve the request, but noted that she understood Commissioner Gorham’s point. Commissioner Gorham stated that the Commission’s job was to interpret City code. Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt there could be an argument against what Commissioner Gorham had stated related to the creek itself. She noted that just because you could put a bridge over it did not mean that it was not an unusual thing that was making the property unable to be developed. She stated that she felt that the creek could be considered unusual enough to grant this variance request. Commissioner Gorham stated that the only real effect that the creek was having on this site was that it created the L-shape. Commissioner Holker stated that she would guess that the original lot was more rectangular and they sold off the rectangle shaped section. Commissioner Gorham stated that the creek was having no impact on the shape of the lot. Commissioner Johnson stated that they did not know if that was true or not. Planning Director Darling stated that the Pebble Creek Addition that was approved in 1968 created these two lots as two separate lots. She noted that the previous property owner had purchased both of the lots and used them as one property, but they were always two separate lots that were shaped exactly like what has been shown. She stated that when they decided to sell the property, they sold the two lots separately, but reiterated that it has always been two lots. Commissioner Johnson stated that the applicant has stated that the unusual circumstance was not solely tied to the creek, but that the shape of the lot has always made it difficult to use. Planning Director Darling agreed that was what the applicant’s narrative had stated, but she went back to what she felt the original impact was to the subdivision was in the area which is why she had pulled out the creek. Commissioner Gorham stated that makes him even more convinced that this was not a strong enough argument to recommend approval of the variance request. He noted that between this item and the previous item one of them seemed way more impacted by the topography than the other. Commissioner Johnson stated that, in her view, she did not feel it was necessary to be impacted by the topography and could just be impacted by the shape of the lot. Commissioner Gorham stated that he did not think that was true and read aloud from the report that stated ‘to correct inequities from topography’. Vice-Chair Huskins noted that it also says the shape of the property. Commissioner Gorham clarified that it stated ‘other physical factors of the land’ and asked if an L-shaped lot was an inequity from the physical factor of the land. He reiterated his question on whether every L-shaped lot would get a frontage variance and explained that his answer to that question would be ‘no’. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 20 of 31 Commissioner Johnson asked Planning Director Darling to weigh in on that point and if she still stood by her statement about the creek being the unusual hardship. Planning Director Darling confirmed that she did and had put that opinion into writing. Commissioner Gorham stated that his opinion stands and noted that he could see the point that was made about the previous item, but reiterated that this time it feels weaker than that one because this is more about an L-shape that was created by a creek and explained that he was not convinced that the creek had actually created the L-shape. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that this is a property that in all ways supports two homes, not withstanding the driveway and frontage issue. Commissioner Gorham stated that it did not support it without the variance, so the City code did not support two homes here. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that with the exception that there is a variance request for a reduction in the frontage, he would say it supported two homes. He stated that Planning Director Darling had also stated that it was not an absolute that the 120 feet was required and that every property was deserving of access to a road through a driveway. He explained that he was not hung up on the 120 feet but was more hung up on the geometry and attributes of the driveway being proposed from a safety and neighbor standpoint. He stated that if this moves forward to the City Council, he would like to add a condition regarding buffering with trees, especially along the south edge and possible explore landscaping along the trail. He noted that he was inclined to vote in favor of recommending approval of this request. Gorham moved, Holker seconded, to recommend denial of the Minor Subdivision and Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at 26275 Smithtown Road. Motion failed 1-3 (Johnson, Holker, and Huskins opposed) Johnson moved, Holker seconded, to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision and Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at 26275 Smithtown Road, subject to the conditions included in the staff report with a modification to change the wording of ‘consider modifying the tree preservation plan’ to ‘attempt to revise the tree preservation plan’, and include an additional condition to endeavor in their plans to provide a safety mechanism to protect walkers/bikers that on traversing the pathway. Vice-Chair Huskins suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include language in the conditions to have landscape buffering between the southerly portion of Parcel B and the residents on Peach Circle and also some buffering between the trail and the driveway. Johnson accepted the friendly amendment to include language in the conditions to have landscape buffering between the southerly portion of Parcel B and the residents on Peach Circle and also some buffering between the trail and the driveway, and also to amend the original motion to include language that states that the applicant must try to preserve the oak tree owned by the City. Planning Director Darling suggested that the original motion be repealed and they start over in order to make the motion and conditions more clear. Johnson repealed the motion. Holker repealed the second. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 21 of 31 Johnson moved, Holker seconded to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision and Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at 26275 Smithtown Road, subject to conditions included in the staff report, and make a revision from ‘consider modifying the tree preservation plan’ to ‘attempt to revise the tree preservation plan’ and try to preserve the oak tree owned by the City. Vice-Chair Huskins reiterated that he would like to make a friendly amendment. Commissioner Johnsons asked if she needed to include the point in her motion that she would like to put the vegetation above construction within the plat process. Planning Director Darling stated that it would need to be included in the motion and explained that they could just move the second bullet point under ‘prior to construction of any home’ to revise the plans consistent with City code. Johnson amended her motion, Holker seconded the amended motion, to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision and Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at 26275 Smithtown Road, subject to conditions included in the staff report, and make a revision from ‘consider modifying the tree preservation plan’ to ‘attempt to revise the tree preservation plan’; try to preserve the oak tree owned by the City; move the second bullet point under ‘Prior to construction of any home’ of ‘Clear any vegetation that impedes trail visibility at the driveway connection to Smithtown Road’ to be placed under the bullet point under ‘Revise the plans consistent with City code’. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he would also like to make a friendly amendment to the motion to include landscaping plans need to be proposed to create a buffer on the southern boundary of Parcel B in order to shield the site from neighboring properties as well as a landscaping plan that includes some elements in order to provide some buffering from the eastern side of the driveway easement between it and the trail. Johnson accepted the friendly amendment, Holker seconded, to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision and Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at 26275 Smithtown Road, subject to conditions included in the staff report, and make a revision from ‘consider modifying the tree preservation plan’ to ‘attempt to revise the tree preservation plan’; try to preserve the oak tree owned by the City; move the second bullet point under ‘Prior to construction of any home’ of ‘Clear any vegetation that impedes trail visibility at the driveway connection to Smithtown Road’ to be placed under the bullet point under ‘Revise the plans consistent with City code’; and add a condition that landscaping plans need to be proposed to create a buffer on the southern boundary of Parcel B in order to shield the site from neighboring properties as well as a landscaping plan that includes some elements in order to provide some buffering from the eastern side of the driveway easement between it and the trail. Motion carried 3-1 (Gorham opposed) Vice-Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 10:25 p.m. and reconvened at 10:30 p.m. 5. OTHER BUSINESS – A. Variance to Christmas Lake Structure Setback Applicant: Jeffrey and Maggie Seybold Location: 5840 Ridge Road CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 22 of 31 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request for a variance in order to allow for a shed within the setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Christmas Lake. She stated that the applicant’s narrative was attached to the staff report and explained that they wanted to add lakefront storage for their personal items. She reviewed the criteria in the zoning regulations that should be used for consideration of this variance request. She explained the reasons that staff felt that the variance request failed to meet the variance criteria and was recommending denial of the request. She noted that the City had not received any letters related to this request. Commissioner Johnson asked how the City handled and monitored the structures that were already there prior to 1987. Planning Director Darling explained that the City had specific non-conforming rules in place, but the State also has rules pertaining to non-conforming structures. She stated that in the past, the City was able to put sunset dates in, which meant the applicants had a certain number of years in order to remove their structure, however the State no longer permits that. She stated that those structures can continue in perpetuity, but they cannot be expanded. She noted that according to the State, any person can demolish their non-conforming structure and rebuild it, but the volume/footprint had to be the same. She explained that there are some requirements if those structures are demolished by an Act of God, for example, a certain time period that people have to replace them before their non-conforming status would disappear. Commissioner Holker asked if this was regulated by any entity such as the watershed district or if this was just a City rule. Planning Director Darling explained that this was a City rule within their Shoreland Regulations based on a model ordinance by the DNR and gave examples of differences between the City’s regulations and other cities. Commissioner Johnson asked about the statement about a structure that had been demolished. Planning Director Darling stated that the applicants had indicated that there was a prior structure, but once a structure is voluntarily removed and not replaced within 1 year, the non-conforming status was removed. Commissioner Gorham asked what the harm would be and whether it was below the flood plain. Planning Director Darling explained that Christmas Lake does not have a floodplain, but the shed is located on the property within 75 feet of the OHWL which is prohibited in the ordinance. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that Planning Director Darling had stated that the City was trying to be systematic about removing these structures. Planning Director Darling confirmed that the goal of the ordinance was to, over time, decrease the number of non-conforming structures that they have. Vice-Chair Huskins asked how that will occur because if it was legally non-conforming, then the City could not intervene. Planning Director Darling clarified that the City cannot require the structure to be removed as long as it is maintained and in good condition, but if it was removed by either an Act of God or CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 23 of 31 voluntarily removed, there was a certain time period where the legally non-conforming status would expire. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if his understanding was correct that in this situation there was no permit issued by the City. Planning Director Darling confirmed that this was accurate. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if someone asked for a permit then they would have to conform with the 75-foot setback requirement. Planning Director Darling stated that they would have to comply with this plus the setback from the bluff. Commissioner Gorham stated that if they had asked for a permit in this situation, it would have been denied. Planning Director Darling agreed that it would have been denied for this location. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that the applicants could move this structure to a different location and it would be allowed if it met the setbacks. Planning Director Darling explained that it would need to be at least 75 feet from the OHWL and 20 feet from the top of the bluff. Jeffrey Seybold, 5840 Ridge Road, stated that he wanted to draw the Commission’s attention to what he felt were key factors in reviewing their request. He stated that staff appeared to be concerned about the uniqueness of this variance request and most lakefront owners would like to be able to enhance the lakefront and also make it more functional which may include an accessory structure. He stated that if the fact that they are requesting a variance for a shed was not considered a unique request and therefore invalid, then he would expect that nearly every variance request could not be considered unique. He pointed out that Christmas Lake is a unique place within the entire Metro area because it is essentially a terminal moraine with a substantial ridge along the eastern border of the lake. He explained that the ridge created natural beauty as well as a degree of privacy and noted that the ridge itself was unique because it also created a significant bluff that complicates access to the lakefront for residents who live around the ridge. He noted that even Hill Hiker, a local company that builds trams or funiculars across the world have acknowledged that Ridge Road is one of the few areas within the State that they install and service the trams/funiculars in order to bring residents down to their lakefronts. He stated that the property along the ridge is unique with regard to the topography of the plots. He noted that he felt that they could also argue that their lakefront is unique from every other lakefront along Ridge Road because they are one of the only properties that does not already have a shed or accessory structure along the lakefront. He explained that this had not always been the case because the property previously had a shed that was directly on the lakeshore. He stated that he would argue, and believes that his neighbors would agree, that the current shed was more aesthetic and private than the old structure. He stated that he did not understand how their request would not be considered ‘unique’ given the unusual topography of the lakefront and the struggle it creates with safety and being able to securely and aesthetically storing and protecting their water and lake related equipment. He noted that another key point he would like to address is the overall principle of conforming to the City code and explained that based on the staff comments, it appeared that the City was intent on bringing all shoreline structures into compliance. He stated that given the current code, which limits any structures within a 75 foot CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 24 of 31 setback from the lakefront it essentially meant that the City was opposed to and would ideally eliminate all structures that are currently along the lakefront. He stated that he felt that this was impractical, impossible to enforce, but also demonstrated how out of touch the City was with realistic and reasonable use of residential lakefront property. He explained that their shed was, in no way, affecting the quality of life of their neighbors along the ridge or throughout Christmas Lake. He stated that allowing this variance would allow their property to maintain conformity with the other properties along Ridge Road that already have structures on the lakefront. He stressed that the State DNR lakefront regulations acknowledged that all residents in the State should be allowed to have a water accessory structure along the lakefront provided it met certain criteria regarding size and resting more than a 10-foot setback from the OHWL and noted that their shed met those criteria. He noted that the City of Chanhassen incorporated properties along the south shores of Ridge and Christmas Lake and they acknowledge the DNR regulations and allows for the building of water based accessory structures as they were proposing and are found along the entire ridge. He stated that he found it difficult to believe that the City would disregard the DNR regulations and noted that there was nothing in the City code that specifically addressed lakefront accessory structures, but are just structures, in general. He explained that he has found it frustrating to fight through this much regulation to build a reasonable structure that conforms with the overwhelming majority of their neighbors when they would have no trouble building the exact same shed, in the exact same location on the lakefront if their property were just a few houses down in the City of Chanhassen. He stated that he felt that approving this variance request made sense, allows for responsible use of the lakefront, does not interfere with the quality of life and enjoyment of the lake by their neighbors, and helps the City follow regulations that are provided by the DNR. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be any possibility that the shed could be moved back to the 75-foot setback. Mr. Seybold stated that they cannot because of the bluff regulations and noted that the shed would essentially have to be located where their house was located. Commissioner Gorham stated that Mr. Seybold had said something about his home being unique, even within the Ridge Road area and asked for more background information. Mr. Seybold stated that they are one of two homes along the ridge that doesn’t already have a structure along the lakefront. He stated that in that regard they would be unique because they would not have a shed and everybody else does. Commissioner Gorham noted that may be a stretch. Mr. Seybold noted that he was not sure if all the homes on Ridge Road were located on a bluff, but knows that many of them are. Commissioner Johnson asked if the shed was permanently affixed to the land. Mr. Seybold stated that it was not permanently affixed to the land. Commissioner Johnson noted that could be considered more of a fixture than a structure and explained that she was just trying to see if it fit into the structure category. Planning Director Darling assured the Commission that the shed fit into the category of a structure. Mr. Seybold noted that the shed did not have a foundation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 25 of 31 Vice-Chair Huskins asked for a reminder about the permitting. Mr. Seybold explained that the understanding between himself and the shed manufacturer was that it would not require a building permit for putting up the shed, which was technically correct, but they did not realize that in the City of Shorewood, this would require a zoning permit. Commissioner Gorham asked if this became an issue when he came to the City to get the zoning permit. Mr. Seybold stated that the City of Shorewood has a complaint-based process so it had become an issue when someone reported the shed. He noted that he would like to draw attention to the fact that the City had received no e-mails, nor was anyone present at the meeting that was willing to stand behind the complaint or explain how they felt it would negatively affect their quality of life or negatively affect their property on the lake. He explained that was how they had realized the error related to the zoning permit issue and have been working with Planning Director Darling to gather the appropriate paperwork in order to apply for the variance. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he was sure that Mr. Seybold could understand the bind that the City was in by having code and the argument made within the staff report that this would essentially change the code if they granted this request to anyone who lived on the lake. Mr. Seybold stated that he did understand that which was why they were submitting this for the variance with respect to acknowledging the uniqueness of the property. He noted that they felt this was a different request than somebody that had different topography on their property. Commissioner Johnson asked how many homes on Christmas Lake were abutting that ridge and asked if that would make this group of homes unique. Planning Director Darling stated that she had not counted them separately, but every home along Ridge Road had bluff issues. Commissioner Johnson stated that not every home on Christmas Lake abutted the ridge. Planning Director Darling confirmed that not all properties on Christmas Lake have bluffs. Commissioner Johnson stated that to that extent the argument could be made that it was unique if they had bluff property. Planning Director Darling explained that when she did her review, she would say, but for the existence of the bluff, could they have a shed in the position that they located it and the answer was ‘no’. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if that meant that the bluff was not relevant. Planning Director Darling stated that the bluff was not relevant except it does push the setback further away from the shoreline. Commissioner Holker asked if this was a public hearing. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that this was not a public hearing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 26 of 31 Planning Director Darling explained that even though it was not a public hearing, it was a public meeting, so the Commission could open this item up for public comment. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there was anyone present who wanted to address the Commission and opened the meeting for public testimony at 10:58 p.m. Carl Zinn, 5820 Ridge Road, stated that he was here to confirm that he cannot even see the shed from his home or his shoreline but noted that he could see it for about 20 seconds when he rides down his lift. He explained that it did not affect him as a neighbor from his use or enjoyment of the property at all. He stated that he just cannot understand why Shorewood would not change the Code because it does not make any sense because Minnesota is all about lakeshore which is something that the DNR acknowledges. He stated that he just had a transaction in Deephaven that has the same law and they granted a variance because the DNR says that you can have a water related accessory structure within the setback area. He stated that he did think that Shorewood should increase the restrictiveness of that water related structure. He noted that the Commission served an important purpose because they provide the City Council with the information that they need to make these kinds of decisions and encouraged the Commission to take this a step further beyond the variance. He explained that he felt a variance was the way to handle this situation, but also felt that they should encourage the City Council to take a look at what the DNR says and how other cities treat water related accessory structures and fix this because he did not feel it made sense. Brian Carpenter, 5875 Ridge Road, stated that the Seybolds are a new young family in the neighborhood and what they have placed on their property was not unreasonable or anything that caused concern. He asked the Commission to think about the stuff that they need to store in the shed so they do not have to haul it all up and down the hill which would be unreasonable with or without a tram. He stated that there are already a lot of structures already and he also questioned how the City would be able to get rid of all of them. He noted that he felt that what they have has the primary function of safety and practicality. He asked the Commission to give some grace and understanding when they are evaluating this situation. Red Smith, 5860 Ridge Road, stated that they have a cabin structure down at the lake that they built in 1965 and from there they can see the Seybold’s little structure. He explained that they felt it was very tastefully done and was an improvement over what they had looked at before. He noted that when they ride along the shoreline it was hidden by the trees so it really cannot be seen. Maureen Yutz, 5890 Ridge Road, stated that she and her husband have lived here since 1993. She explained that they had a structure that was pre-existing down below and do have a funicular that had to be replaced by the lift company referred to earlier in the meeting. She stated that most people on their section of the ridge, which is the highest spot in Carver County, and its height means that the required setback was impossible for structure placement. She stated that when they are down at the lake it is fabulous because they get away from the busy-ness of the house. She stated that having a place to store their things will remove the clutter and agreed with the statement made that the structure put up by the Seybolds was tasteful and explained that she was in favor of granting the variance. She stated that there are other places on Christmas Lake where they can be further back and noted that all of Christmas Lake has made an effort to have trees in front and attempt to keep the homes hidden. She asked about the regulation about the water level and if it was 12 feet instead of 10 feet and if the ridge was not there how far back it would need to be. Planning Director Darling clarified that the distance would still be 75 feet from the OHWL. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 27 of 31 Ms. Yutz stated that she was talking to Mr. Zinn earlier and believes that there are 30-40 homes along the ridge and only 2 without structures and felt that was something to think about with relation to uniqueness because she felt the ridge was a pretty unique geological feature. She reiterated that she and her husband were in favor of granting this variance. Bob Wallace, 5610 Covington Road, stated that Mr. Seybold told him that they would be building a shed to keep all their toys in, but he had driven by 4-5 times and had never seen the shed because it was situated behind the trees. He stated that it did not bother him at all and even the color blends in and wasn’t obnoxious. He stated that the area is just like it has been described because there is the bluff, a tiny flat space, and then it goes down to the lake. He noted that the only way that it could be moved back 75 feet is to cut into the bluff which they cannot do. He stated that he was also here to agree with the statements that have already been made and supported this variance request. He stated that he did not envy the Commissions position but felt that they had to make decisions based on the individual situation and encouraged them to vote to approve this request. Vice-Chair Huskins closed the public testimony at 11:09 p.m. Commissioner Johnson asked if it would be possible to table this item until they had a chance to look into how many people had similar geography in the whole City, not just on Christmas Lake. She stated that it seemed to her that this situation was somewhat unique if the bluff is really how it has been described. Planning Director Darling stated that if the Commission continues this item, it will leave the Council with an inadequate amount of time to review the application. Commissioner Gorham asked if this was something on the list for consideration by the new planning consultant that would be working on the code. Planning Director Darling stated that it was not on a list and noted that when the shoreland regulations were adopted, Shorewood chose to be more restrictive than other communities. She noted that she has spoken with the DNR because they had a few questions about the application but they chose not to comment. She stated that, as she told the applicant, their claims that everybody else gets one or has more storage so they should be able to have a shed, seemed to be more along the lines of a zoning ordinance amendment and not a variance. Commissioner Johnson stated that one of the speakers had mentioned Deephaven who had been given a variance and asked if they had the same requirements for a variance as Shorewood. Planning Director Darling stated that she did not know. Commissioner Holker asked if the City had granted any variances for this type of request recently. Planning Director Darling stated that a few years ago there was a deck that was put in without permits that had been destroyed by a landslide. She noted that in that instance, the City had granted a variance to rebuild the deck closer to the shore, which was also on Ridge Road. Commissioner Holker explained that her challenge was consistency and what concerns her is that this was well done because it was subtle and behind the trees and if the City grants this variance, then others may come in with the same request for something similar but may not be as well done. She stated that the City did not have any regulations on what may be acceptable, CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 28 of 31 so she was not sure she was comfortable agreeing with this request because others may come and had concerns about what should be done moving forward. Commissioner Gorham stated that he agreed that this seemed totally reasonable but feels like he would be a massive hypocrite if he said that the variance language did not apply. He stated that the language isn’t really about the variance and was really about the DNR and Chanhassen language and the agreeable-ness of it all. He explained that he would love to find something in here that resonated with him from a variance standpoint, but it doesn’t. He asked if it may be worth looking at the language again and questioned whether they were being too severe and asked when the Planning Commission had reviewed this language. Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission had considered the shoreland regulations before her time with the City. Commissioner Gorham suggested that may be something that want to undertake. Commissioner Johnson stated that if the funicular company is telling people that they are so high that they do not want to even build on the land and people believe themselves to be in the top altitude level that would make a geological difference. She noted that she felt that topographically an argument could be made that this is unusual in the State and also in the City but they do not have time to investigate it. Commissioner Gorham brought up Birch Bluff or Lake William and noted that those areas were also very steep. Vice-Chair Huskins explained that his concern with the application began with not having a permit to do the work. He noted that there have been recent examples where people have done work and have ended up being asked to undo the work and shared some examples. Commissioner Gorham stated that he was not convinced that when someone complained about the shed that it wasn’t about not getting the right permit and more that they knew it was not allowed and would never be able to get a permit. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he felt what brought the complaint forward was irrelevant. Commissioner Gorham explained that Vice-Chair Huskins was making it about the permit application. Vice-Chair Huskins noted that he believed that he would make the same point about any request for a variance after the fact because if people do not get permits to do things then it is a free-for- all situation. He stated that he did not want to reward people for not having a permit, because he felt that was a recipe for danger in the City. He noted that if he sets that aside, he likes what Commissioner Gorham had stated earlier and explained that he also felt it was a very reasonable request, on a personal level, and felt that it made a lot of sense for the code to be revisited in order to understand why the City’s code was more stringent than the DNR. He stated that the difficulty is that they are being asked to make an exception for the Seybolds in advance of being able to change the code which is why he was having difficulty supporting this request. He explained that, on an emotional level, he was with the residents and their reasoning, but the Commission has to look at the code and try to protect all of Shorewood on the basis of what they have, even if it is a crummy code that needs to be changed. He stated that his sense was to vote to recommend denial of the application but make a strong recommendation to the Council that they task the Commission with revisiting this code and look to possibly rewrite it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 29 of 31 Commissioner Johnson read aloud some of the criteria to be considered for a variance. Gorham moved, Holker seconded, to recommend denial of the Variance to Christmas Lake Structure Setback for Jeffrey and Maggi Seybold at 5840 Ridge Road. Motion carried 3-1 (Johnson opposed) Vice-Chair Huskins reiterated that he would like to communicate to the Council that he strongly recommended that the Commission be given the task of revisiting this code. He stated that if they could do that in time, it may be possible that the code can be changed which would completely change this situation. Mr. Seybold noted that they would be out of the country on October 15, 2024 because it was right before MEA weekend and would like to be able to be present when the City Council considers this item. Planning Director Darling stated that she will attempt to get this slated for the next City Council meeting on September 23, 2024, so Mr. Seybold could be in attendance. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there was any way to permit the applicant the right to maintain or keep the shed in its current location for a period of time until the City has a chance to review the code. Planning Director Darling stated that could not be done without a variance. Vice-Chair Huskins asked if they were basically saying that the applicant had to move the shed immediately. Planning Director Darling explained that they would have to remove it and if they wanted to put it in a conforming location, they would need a permit. Commissioner Johnson noted that the Council may decide that they want to approve the variance. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he agreed because the Commission was just making a recommendation. A woman from the audience asked if they could move the Council consideration to November. Planning Director Darling stated that they could, if the applicants granted the City additional time and explained that it would need to be submitted in writing. Commissioner Johnson asked what the Commission was trying to accomplish with the possible delay in Council action. Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he felt that they were trying to look into the possibility of changing the code language. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 30 of 31 B. Discussion on the R-3B Zoning District Amendments and Related Code Changes to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Vice-Chair Huskins asked if this could be postponed until the next meeting due to the late hour. Planning Director Darling explained that they were committed to hold the public hearing at the next Commission meeting. She noted that they did not have a formal presentation on this item for tonight’s meeting because at the last meeting the draft ordinance had inadvertently been left out of the packet. She noted that there had not been many changes other than a change to impervious surface regulations. Vice-Chair Huskins referenced a paragraph on page 2 of the staff report that he did not understand the meaning and read aloud a portion of the paragraph that stated, ‘adequately apply to the area being’. Planning Director Darling clarified that should be the R-3B zoning district and noted that she must have amended that sentence a few times. She explained that she was trying to say that there was some language in their impervious surface section that was very outdated, so as long as they were looking at changing that section of code, she wanted to update this to at least reference the current standards rather than the NURP standards which were common in the 1990s and 2000s. Vice-Chair Huskins referenced the first page of the draft ordinance, under 1201.118 and explained that he was confused by the edit that stated ‘at a density ranging over eight dwelling units per acre’ and asked if there was a maximum number. Planning Director Darling stated that there was a maximum number and noted that it was determined by the Comprehensive Plan as thirty units. She noted that this could be changed to ‘a density between eight and thirty dwelling units per acre’. Vice-Chair Huskins pointed out a small typographical error below that section. He referenced Subd. 7 where it states ‘Not less than 1,800 square feet’ and asked if it was speaking to something other than the entirety including affordable dwellings. He noted that he thought he had seen something elsewhere about affordable dwellings that were 1,400 to 1,800 square feet. Planning Director Darling stated that she will look at this in the morning when she can more easily do the math. Vice-Chair Huskins asked about language used under Residential Planned Unit Development, 2 where it says ‘no more than 16 persons’ and where it had come from. Planning Director Darling stated that was State statute language that would refer to something like a group home. Vice-Chair Huskins asked that a clean copy of the draft document be prepared and used for the public hearing. Planning Director Darling stated that she would plan to incorporate the changes that had been discussed. 6. REPORTS CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Page 31 of 31 • Council Meeting Report Council Liaison Zerby noted that he had nothing to report because he was unable to attend the most recent City Council meeting. Planning Director Darling stated that she was also not in attendance at the last City Council meeting. Council Liaison Zerby noted that the minutes of the meeting were available on the City’s website. He explained that apparently there was a large amount of residents at the Council Work Session meeting related to the City’s budget, so the Council had made the decision to hold an Open House meeting in order to get more input from the residents. Planning Director Darling stated that the open house would be held on September 23, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. Vice-Chair Huskins noted that there was a question received off-line about what the Council had decided to do with the boat dealer/marine store. Council Liaison Zerby stated that the Council had approved it,but had asked them to remove the proposed display area on the front lawn area. Planning Director Darling explained that the applicant had not yet come forward with building permit applications or met with staff, but did think that they had closed on the property. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated that they will hold the public hearing on the R-3B zoning district amendments and related code changes to implement the Comprehensive Plan for the high density land uses and will also review the 2025 ten year CIP. Commissioner Gorham stated that he was slated to present at the upcoming Council meeting and asked what was on the agenda. Planning Director Darling stated that he would just be discussing what was discussed at tonight’s meeting and noted that those items would come to the Council on October 15, 2024. She noted that she could arrange for their presentation to be on October 15, 2024 rather than at the next meeting. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be a quorum for the next meeting because she would be gone. Planning Director Darling noted that Commissioner Johnson was the only person who has informed her that they would not be in attendance. 7. ADJOURNMENT Gorham moved, Johnson seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 2024, at 11:45 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.