12 03 2024 Planning Comm Agenda and PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2024
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 19, 2024
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
GORHAM ()
EGGENBERGER (Dec)
HUSKINS Q absent
HOLKER ()
JOHNSON (Nov)
COUNCIL LIAISON SANSCHAGRIN(Feb-Jun)
COUNCIL LIAISON ZERBY (Jul -Dec)
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, that is not on
tonight's agenda, but related to the governance of the City of Shorewood, to the
attention of the Planning Commission. In providing this limited public forum, the
City of Shorewood expects respectful participation. We encourage all speakers to
be courteous in their language and behavior, and to confine their remarks to
those facts that are relevant to the question or matter under discussion. Anyone
wishing to address the Commission should raise their hand and wait to be called
on. Please make your comments from the podium and identify yourself by your
first and last name and your address for the record. Please limit your comments
to three minutes. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on this
matter. The Commission may request the issue be forwarded to the City Council
or to staff to prepare a report and place it on the next agenda.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) City Code Amendments — Sacred Communities & Micro Unit Dwellings
Location: City Wide
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Tentative review at City Council: January 13, 2025
B) City Code Amendments — Administration, Amendments, Conditional Use
Permits and Interim Use Permits
Location: City Wide
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Tentative review at City Council: January 13, 2025
5. OTHER BUSINESS —
A) Discussion of Subdivision Code Amendments
Location: City Wide
Applicant: City of Shorewood
6. REPORTS
A) Council Meeting Report
B) Draft Next Meeting Agenda
ADJOURNMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Eggenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Eggenberger; Commissioners Gorham, Holker and Johnson; Planning
Director Darling; City Planner Griffiths; and, Council Liaison Zerby
Absent: Commissioner Huskins
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Holker moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda for November 19, 2024, as
presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• October 1, 2024
Chair Eggenberger noted that he had sent an e-mail pointing out a few minor typographical errors.
Holker moved, Gorham seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
of October 1, 2024, as amended. Motion passed 4/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS -
A. PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY
APARTMENT
Applicant: Peter & Jane Anne Hill
Location: 19660 Sweetwater Curve
City Planner Griffiths gave an overview of the CUP request for property at 19660 Sweetwater
Curve for an accessory apartment. He explained that they would like to convert the existing
basement space into a dwelling space for relatives of the property owners. He stated that staff
was recommending approval of the request subject to the six conditions included within the staff
report.
Chair Eggenberger Chair Eggenberger explained that the Planning Commission was 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.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 2 of 17
1
2 Commissioner Gorham noted that he believed that this may be the first accessory apartment
3 application that he had seen come through the City and asked what made this an accessory
4 apartment and if it had to be self-contained. He asked why this would not simply be considered a
5 remodel.
6
7 Planning Director Darling explained that it would be creating a separate dwelling unit in the
8 basement, that is separate from the primary structure. She noted that it would have its own
9 access which was an existing back door and explained that the only exterior improvement would
10 be a small walkway down to the back door.
11
12 Commissioner Gorham asked if the indoor stairs would get blocked off.
13
14 Planning Director Darling stated that this apartment would not be the entire basement space.
15
16 Commissioner Gorham asked if the person living here would have to go all the way around if they
17 wanted to go upstairs.
18
19 Planning Director Darling stated that would be a question for the applicant.
20
21 Jane Anne Hill, applicant, stated that a mother-in-law's apartment already existed when they
22 moved into their home which is pretty much what this is. She explained that she was going
23 through the legal process of making it an accessory apartment, per the City's standards, so it was
24 all legal for her brother, who is on disability. She noted that they would not make her brother go
25 all the way around the house in order to come upstairs and explained that there is a door that
26 would separate the remainder of the basement area from the apartment area. She stated that for
27 all intents and purposes, the apartment would be wholly separate, but her brother would be able
28 to come upstairs if he wanted to.
29
30 Chair Eggenberger noted that he thought this was also the first accessory apartment application
31 that he could remember seeing as well. He asked why they needed the CUP and if they could
32 just move the applicant's brother into the space.
33
34 Planning Director Darling stated that they could move her brother in, but they could not create a
35 separate dwelling unit within the property. She stated that she thinks that they want to do it this
36 way so, if the applicant's brother should ever need a caregiver beyond the applicants, it could
37 also be used as a caregiver apartment in the future which would be a separate household.
38
39 Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
40 Hearing. There being no public comment, he closed the Public Hearing.
41
42 Gorham moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit
43 For Accessory Apartment request for Peter & Jane Anne Hill at 19660 Sweetwater Curve,
44 subject to the six conditions included in the staff report.
45
46 Motion passed 4/0.
47
48 B. PUBLIC HEARING — REZONING THREE PARCELS FROM C-2 TO R-313
49 Applicant: City of Shorewood
50 Location: 23445, 23425 and 23400 Smithtown Road (County Road 19)
51
CITY Of SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 3 of 17
1 Planning Director Darling explained that this request was a City initiated application to rezone
2 three parcels from C-2 zoning district to the R-313 zoning district. She noted that the Met Council
3 had completed their review of the City's updated Comprehensive Plan and as part of that update
4 was the application of the high -density land use designation for these three properties. She
5 reminded the Commission that the high -density land use designation allows between eight and
6 thirty units per acre. She explained that the City was required to amend the zoning map and
7 apply a zoning district to the property that would allow the property owner to develop their property
8 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the Council had recently adopted
9 changes to the R-31B zoning district to allow developments that would be consistent with that high-
10 density land use classification. She reviewed the criteria and analysis that had been done by staff
11 and explained that with this rezoning, the property owners were not required to give up the current
12 uses that these properties were currently operating under and clarified that each of the uses on
13 these properties may continue indefinitely. She stated that they could also sell the property to
14 someone else who would want to use the property in the same manner and gave examples. Staff
15 recommends approval of the rezoning of these parcels.
16
17 Commissioner Gorham asked Planning Director Darling to speak to the wider audience and talk
18 about the evolution of these parcels. He noted that the Planning Commission and the City Council
19 have seen these a few times already but stated that it seemed to be the end of a long process.
20
21 Planning Director Darling stated that this would be the end of the long process to implement the
22 Comprehensive Plan for these three parcels. She noted that a few years ago there were public
23 hearings to make the change within the Comprehensive Plan and reviewed some of the meetings
24 that had taken place related to changes to the zoning ordinance that would allow development to
25 occur on the parcels that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that this
26 was essentially the last look at this item before they move onto the next group of changes to the
27 ordinance related to medium density, in order to implement the next piece of the Comprehensive
28 Plan.
29
30 Commissioner Gorham reiterated that this was not the first time the Commission had seen this
31 and noted that the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan was part of a longer process that had
32 also included public hearings. He noted that the decisions within the Comprehensive Plan were
33 driven by the Council and asked what had led the Council to these parcels.
34
35 Planning Director Darling stated that these three sites, in addition to two other existing
36 apartments, along with the two commercial strip centers in the City, were all looked at as potential
37 areas where the City could implement the direction from the Met Council to allow for the City's
38 share in the regional growth pattern. She explained that this meant that the City was expected to
39 provide at least fifty-five units and the majority of these had to be developed at a density of eight
40 units/acre or greater. She noted that these three sites were looked at for potential redevelopment
41 for small, multi -family projects.
42
43 Commissioner Gorham asked about the size of these parcels.
44
45 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed that, altogether, they comprised a total of about
46 4-4.5 acres of land.
47
48 Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be a potential difference in tax income to the City as
49 a result of redevelopment into an apartment building versus the current use or a different use.
50
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 4 of 17
1 Planning Director Darling stated that there would always be a tax implication as properties are
2 redeveloped. She stated that if redevelopment occurred, there would probably be an increase in
3 the amount of taxes that the City receives because these properties currently have aging
4 structures. She noted that if the properties were redeveloped as commercial properties it would
5 be more likely that would bring in more tax base than residential.
6
7 Commissioner Holker asked if her understanding was correct that the owner could keep the
8 businesses, as is, but could also sell it to someone who wanted to continue a commercial usage.
9
10 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct, but noted that it would have to be the same
11 commercial use.
12
13 Commissioner Holker asked if they sold the property and the new owner did not want to have the
14 same commercial use if that meant that their only option would be to redevelop.
15
16 Planning Director Darling stated that the only redevelopment option would be a use consistent
17 with the R-31B zoning district.
18
19 Commissioner Johnson asked about traffic because there was a statement within the staff report
20 that said that C-2 zoning district allows uses that are more likely to encourage traffic, and yet, the
21 dredging company, does not have as much traffic as a 26-unit apartment building would have.
22 She stated that she believed that each unit had to have two parking stalls, which meant that there
23 would be a potential for 52 vehicles. She noted that the dredging company area has a tricky turn
24 on and off of the main road because of the trail location. She asked if staff had considered this
25 information related to potential traffic patterns is this property were redeveloped.
26
27 Planning Director Darling stated that usually, staff did not look at site line issues until there were
28 development proposals.
29
30 Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission could put some stipulations in related to safety
31 or if they had to just wait until there was redevelopment.
32
33 Planning Director Darling stated that they would have to wait for redevelopment.
34
35 Commissioner Gorham stated that this would not exclude the Council from requiring a traffic study
36 and asked how large the dredging site was.
37
38 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed it was around 2.5 acres.
39
40 Commissioner Gorham stated that with that size, at a minimum, they would be looking at 26 units
41 on this parcel.
42
43 Chair Eggenberger gave the example of buying the garden center site but wanting to put a
44 convenience store on it, but would also sell mulch, and asked if that would still be considered a
45 garden center.
46
47 Planning Director Darling stated that, in her opinion, that would not be considered a garden center,
48 but that could be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council.
49
50 Commissioner Johnson asked who was responsible for the trail near the dredging site.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 5 of 17
1 Planning Director Darling stated the trail was on property that is owned by the Hennepin County
2 Rail Authority but the trail was operated by permit from them to the Three Rivers Park District.
3
4 Commissioner Johnson asked if they had been involved at all related to what this possible traffic
5 pattern could do to the trail.
6
7 Planning Director Darling stated that her understanding was that if the applicant proposed
8 redevelopment, the Hennepin County Rail Authority would have review authority over any
9 changes.
10
11 Commissioner Gorham noted that this is a County road.
12
13 Planning Director Darling confirmed that Smithtown Road was a County roadway and noted that
14 the access into the marina and the dredging property is a shared, private driveway.
15
16 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that Commissioner Johnson's question boiled down to
17 the issue that this site has been rezoned, but it didn't make sense to add fifty cars to it.
18
19 Planning Director Darling stated that, at this point, the decision was made for these properties, if
20 at some point in the future they would redevelop, they would need to be able to redevelop to a
21 high -density residential development that conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and the R-313
22 zoning district. She noted that if the Commission was saying that they wanted to turn down the
23 rezoning because they do not think this was the appropriate land use, she believed that they were
24 two years behind.
25
26 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that what Commissioner Johnson was asking was how
27 they could know that this would be a safe thing to do. He asked what would happen if they get
28 further down the road, the City required a traffic study, and the information that they got from the
29 study said that this site cannot operate at this density.
30
31 Planning Director Darling explained that normally you wouldn't look at a full traffic study for a
32 permitted use, but they could have them do a site review of the intersection of the private drive
33 and look at the design for site impacts or needed turn lanes into the property. Similarly, with
34 driveways that are proposed on the properties to the south.
35
36 Commissioner Holker stated that the rezoning had already been including the Comprehensive
37 Plan two years ago and asked what the Planning Commission was doing.
38
39 Planning Director Darling explained that the Comprehensive Plan said that high -density
40 residential would be the most appropriate re -use of these properties and what the City has done
41 with the R-313 zoning district when they rewrote the district. She explained that they had created
42 a zoning district that would allow a property owner to develop in a manner consistent with the
43 Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan provides the big umbrella on how
44 properties are to develop and the zoning ordinance gives the detail on how they anticipate that
45 development to occur.
46
47 Commissioner Johnson explained that Planning Director Darling had said that if it was a permitted
48 use there would not be a traffic study and stated that she felt the Commission was being asked
49 to approve something that could cause a traffic problem.
50
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 6 of 17
1 Planning Director Darling stated that typically a traffic study is performed when they are adding
2 uses that are not foreseen or for conditional uses, for example, adding a drive-thru or proposing
3 substantial development on a property that was not fully comprehended when the zoning district
4 was applied to the property.
5
6 Chair Eggenberger stated that if a developer develops the property in accordance with the zoning
7 regulations, then a traffic study would not be needed.
8
9 Commissioner Johnson stated that they would not have the ability to get the traffic study and
10 noted that whether they needed it or not was another issue.
11
12 Chair Eggenberger stated that they would not have the ability to get it as part of the
13 redevelopment.
14
15 Planning Director Darling clarified that the City would still require enough traffic information to
16 know whether or not things like turn lanes would be needed or make improvements to site lines.
17
18 Commissioner Holker asked if the Commission could make a recommendation that these parcels
19 not be rezoned, even though it would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
20
21 Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission was being asked to review this particular
22 zoning district that the City had crafted specifically for these three parcels and apply it to the
23 property which requires a public hearing and an official decision by the City Council.
24
25 Commissioner Holker stated that the Commission could recommend that they do not use the
26 zoning that they had crafted and developed for these parcels.
27
28 Planning Director Darling confirmed that the Commission could go that route, but noted that if the
29 City does not rezone the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, there would be issues.
30 She stated that, for example, the property owners of these parcels could sue the City because
31 they would be saying that the City would now not give them the right to develop the property the
32 city identified in the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that another problem would be that any
33 redevelopment that would be proposed is of a commercial nature and not high -density residential,
34 the Met Council can refuse to allow sewer extensions for those properties. She stressed that if
35 the City does not take this action, there will be fall -out.
36
37 Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt that the Commission was sharing a concern that would
38 not be addressed if they approve this.
39
40 Planning Director Darling stated that it would not be addressed, at this time.
41
42 Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt it also may not be addressed later.
43
44 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt the input that they would get from the public hearing
45 will be related to traffic on Smithtown. He stated that he did not have a problem with the zoning
46 district itself, but having a density between eight and thirty units per acre meant that these parcels
47 could have anywhere between thirty-six up to one -hundred thirty-five units. He asked how the
48 City could make informed decisions based on how much traffic Smithtown can absorb. He asked
49 if the Commission recommended rezoning these three parcels if they could also recommend a
50 traffic study, even though they cannot authorize one. He explained that if he was approving the
51 next development on one of these parcels, he would want the big picture of how each of the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 7 of 17
1 parcels fit together, because this will have a big effect on the City in the future. He asked what
2 drove the decision on how many units these sites could withstand.
3
4 Chair Eggenberger stated that they have had discussions in the past about the Met Council and
5 the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that they have that issue going on because the Met
6 Council has the power related to sewer lines and things like that so the City, in a way, has to
7 submit to what the Met Council wants done. He noted that Shorewood was no longer on the
8 outskirts and was becoming an inner suburb and stated that this potential development will create
9 traffic and the City would need to decide whether they want to live with that or not.
10
11 Commissioner Johnson stated that it will create traffic, but she believes that this would create a
12 safety issue with respect to the trail crossing. She asked what the minimum number of units could
13 be on the parcel near the trail.
14
15 Planning Director Darling stated that it would be about twenty units because the minimum was
16 eight units per acre.
17
18 Chair Eggenberger noted that some of this would depend on what the developer proposes.
19
20 Commissioner Gorham stated that he believed that they would propose the maximum amount
21 and asked how the City could push back on that a bit and communicate the City's vision for these
22 sites or that they have information that tells the City that the maximum is too much.
23
24 Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
25 Hearing.
26
27 Bob Cunningham, 22375 Murray Street, noted that he had lived in this location for thirty years so
28 he knew this site very well but explained that he was not here as a citizen but was here
29 representing the owner of one of the properties as the Senior Vice -President of development at
30 Kraus Anderson. He noted that he had heard some comments related to traffic and wanted to
31 give his perspective on that and stated that the site was 1.65 acres, so the maximum this could
32 be developed was forty-nine units, but, given the other criteria in the zoning code, such as
33 setbacks and height limitations, they will not be able to get to thirty units/acre on this site. He
34 gave the example of a situation where they would be able to have forty units on the entire site,
35 the traffic counts would be somewhere between eight and fifteen cars per hour traveling to or from
36 the site. He stated that he felt that this site was `safety positive' because it is back a bit from
37 Smithtown Road which meant there would be room for cars to stack. He stated that regarding
38 the trail, there are trail crossings all through Shorewood and Excelsior and explained that
39 wherever they cross a street or a driveway, there is a requirement of the trail user to stop, not the
40 car. He stated that he felt the safety issues and concerns would be able to be addressed as part
41 of the development when it actually comes forward.
42
43 Commissioner Johnson asked if there was ninety feet to the trail.
44
45 Mr. Cunningham stated that was roughly the distance, but noted that he had not anticipated that
46 there would be any concerns related to traffic this evening, so he had not done the specific
47 measurements.
48
49 Commissioner Johnson stated that she had driven this a number of times and noted that it did not
50 see to be that large to her. She stated that part of the problem was also that the trail was a bit
51 elevated so you cannot see all that well, so even if they have to stop, they may not be able to
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 8 of 17
1 actually see. She reiterated that this situation was worrisome to her because the dredging
2 company does not have eight to ten vehicles per hour coming or going.
3
4 Mr. Cunningham agreed that the trail was a bit elevated and explained that they can work with
5 staff to ensure that the safety issues are addressed when the development proposal comes
6 forward. He clarified that they also did not want to create a safety hazard with any development
7 that they are involved in.
8
9 Joel Peters, Davis Family, LLC., explained that he represented the property owner at 23425
10 County Road 19. He stated that he was also here in 2021 when they had objected to the
11 Comprehensive Plan amendment plan and clarified that they had never been in favor of it. He
12 stated that they were talking about a property across the street but were also talking about a
13 blanket zoning issue. He suggested that the City let the individual properties apply for rezoning
14 and address their needs, as things move forward. He stated that as the property owner across
15 the street, they have no desire for this action and continue to object to it for a multitude of reasons.
16 He reiterated that he felt that they should be treated as individuals and the City should allow them
17 to develop as they need to and noted that they have no desire for this to happen and goes against
18 the owner's wishes. He asked what would happen when they needed to improve the existing
19 aging structure in a significant way and what would happen to their current use.
20
21 Planning Director Darling stated that nothing would happen to their use.
22
23 Mr. Peters asked if that would be the case if they did something significant, for example, redoing
24 the front elevation or adding an extension or a loading dock.
25
26 Planning Director Darling explained that they would not be able to expand the building, but would
27 be able to make changes if it did not change the footprint or the volume of the building.
28
29 Mr. Peters stated that he did not see how this rezoning to multi -family was consistent with the
30 adjacent properties. He read aloud the letter that he had submitted to the City that outlined their
31 objection and asked the Planning Commission to deny the proposed rezoning of their property.
32
33 Anna Quadi, 23675 Smithtown Road, stated that her thoughts on this matter were related to the
34 potential financial gain because the way it was structured now was for a single development
35 company to come in, buy the land, build it, and then sell it or collect monthly rental income from
36 it. She explained that she would rather see Shorewood residents be able to capture that financial
37 gain and noted that if they were to rezone homes around the City from single-family to multi-
38 family, for duplexes or triplexes, they could still meet the requirements from the Met Council. She
39 stated that she felt it would be minimal and the growth would be done gradually over time and
40 additional traffic would be evenly distributed around the City rather than being very heavily
41 concentrated in one area that is already busy. She stated that had not previously thought about
42 the trail crossing issue, but felt it would be a huge deal. She noted that with her idea, property
43 owners could submit for rezoning based on a lottery system because it could be a great financial
44 opportunity for them. She explained that she would jump on it if she could and her property was
45 already zoned for multi -family housing which was a selling point for her when she purchased the
46 home. She shared other aspects that she felt were positives for the scenario she described,
47 including the creation of real affordable housing, which she felt was the Met Council's objective.
48 She noted that she understood that moving ahead with the current plan would be easier in some
49 aspects because it was all ready to go, but she did not believe it was the best thing for residents
50 of the City.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 9 of 17
1 Commissioner Gorham noted that the 2024 legislative session talked about the 'missing middle'
2 which sounded like the proposal being made by Ms. Quadi.
3
4 Ms. Quadi stated that Minneapolis had gone to this and no longer had single-family zoning
5 anymore in an effort to create affordable housing. She stated that she felt her idea would not
6 impact the neighborhood or change the feel of the City, and would be a good way to create
7 affordable housing without drastically changing the community.
8
9 Commissioner Gorham stated that he did not think it was an 'either-or' situation and this action
10 would not preclude something that what she was suggesting.
11
12 Ms. Quadi clarified that her thought was to do her proposal instead of what was being proposed
13 tonight.
14
15 Daniel Longo, 5785 Wooden Cleek Drive, stated that the purpose of the Planning Commission
16 was to look at what the City would look like in the future, so if they do not have all the answers
17 today, he felt that they did not need to commit. He stated that the traffic would be bad if there
18 were one hundred cars in that location and there would be no space to go to or for parking
19 because the water is just four feet underground. He stated that he did not think a traffic study
20 was needed because they know that everything will be backed up here and only someone who
21 does not live in this part of the City could create this kind of plan. He stated that he lives here and
22 getting in and out of the City in peak traffic times can be almost impossible. He noted that this
23 would also bring in more children which meant more bus stops along the street and putting the
24 responsibility for safety onto the users of the trail meant that this will be on children because that
25 is who will use the trail. He stated that the City does not have many commercial areas in the City
26 and asked why they would give away three of those parcels for this use. He stated that he agreed
27 with the idea raised that if the owners want this, they can apply and noted that the owner of the
28 garden center does not want this rezoning, which meant that there were two of the parcel owners
29 that do not want this plan to move forward. He reiterated that he did not feel that the Planning
30 Commission had to make a decision if they did not feel that they had all the information.
31
32 Curt Hanson, 23985 Smithtown Road, stated that he purchased this property in 1991 and noted
33 that he felt people had a concern about the traffic on the road itself. He explained that when he
34 moved in, traffic was not that bad and has definitely gotten worse and noted that he sometimes
35 has difficulty even getting out of his driveway. He stated that he felt the traffic would get worse
36 whether the City approved this high -density property or not. He explained that he had concerns
37 about the trail and stated that there had been mention of lawsuits from the Met Council or the
38 people that own the land, but he felt there should be a discussion with the people who own the
39 trail as well. He stated that he felt that the Railroad Authority and Three Rivers Park District
40 should be involved and aware of what was going on as well as the potential of building on that
41 property. He stated that it did not sound as though this type of discussion has happened yet. He
42 stated that all three of these parcels have individual property owners and felt that they should
43 have the right to do what they want with their own property and bundling them all together under
44 this plan seemed like they were being forced. He noted that he was also concerned about the
45 tax issue and explained that years ago, several access roads along Highway 7 were closed off
46 which has slowed traffic down all along Yellowstone Trail. He stated that he had attended a
47 meeting at the time where he had raised his concerns that their property values would increase
48 because of that due to having a quieter neighborhood, but nothing was done. He stated that he
49 felt that by rezoning this so a potential developer can come in, it would increase the property value
50 immediately which he felt the City or County should address it by increasing the taxes to
51 accommodate the increased value.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 10 of 17
1
2 Beth Brown, 25695 Wildrose Lane, stated that she agreed with some of the things that have
3 already been shared tonight and explained that she did not understand why it had gotten to this
4 point without these vital discussions already taking place. She stated that she did not understand
5 why there was a grand plan developed and had gotten to the `now or never' point but they do not
6 know about the safety of the trail or the traffic and explained that she did not see how they could
7 comfortably accommodate the traffic that was being discussed.
8
9 There being no additional comment, Chair Eggenberger closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
10
11 Planning Director Darling noted that there were a few questions brought up during the public
12 hearing that she could address. She stated that she had specific information on the sizes of the
13 properties and explained that the dredging company property was 1.65 acres, the westerly
14 property on the south side of Smithtown Road was .8 acres, and the property where the garden
15 shop is located was 1.1 acres. She stated that she did a quick measurement of the space
16 between the Rail Authority property and Smithtown Road right-of-way and found it was about
17 seventy feet. She stated that there had been a suggestion to rezone properties throughout the
18 City to allow two or three homes on single-family parcels in the City in order to satisfy the Met
19 Council requirement, but explained that the Met Council had indicated that the City had to provide
20 a majority of the fifty-five units at eight units per acre or higher. She noted that allowing one or
21 two additional homes on every single property in the City would not satisfy the Met Council
22 requirement because the density was not high enough. She noted that it could be something that
23 is looked at in the future, but reiterated that it would not satisfy the requirement in this particular
24 instance. She stated that there was a comment that property owners should have the right to do
25 what they want with their property and explained that the City sets limits on the property rights of
26 every single property owner within the City, which is the City's job, and shared various examples.
27 She explained that the property owners of the trail have been included in the discussion and were
28 given notice about the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan amendments. She noted that they
29 are reactionary and do not usually become involved unless there is a specific question about what
30 would be allowed for trail crossings. She noted that there was a comment shared that there had
31 not been enough discussion on this issue, but explained that there has been substantial
32 discussion over the years on this site, primarily when the Comprehensive Plan was amended.
33 She stated that there were public hearings, public discussions, and all kinds of public meetings
34 that took place, so she would refute the statement that there has not been enough discussion.
35 She reiterated that the action the Commission was being asked to take tonight was to implement
36 zoning changes in order to allow for development that was consistent with the Comprehensive
37 Plan. She noted that tax implications were typically not considered when the City was having
38 significant land use discussions and explained that she did not know what the individual tax
39 implications would be for making this change to the zoning but stated that she did not think there
40 would be much because they would be taxed based on how the property was being used.
41
42 Commissioner Holker asked if this had been discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting.
43
44 Chair Eggenberger stated that it was not discussed at the last meeting.
45
46 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt it was about three meetings ago.
47
48 Commissioner Johnson stated that the Commission had heard from one property owner who was
49 not in favor of this rezoning and asked if the other two property owners were in favor of this
50 change.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 11 of 17
1 Planning Director Darling stated that one property owner was in favor of it and the other two were
2 not.
3
4 Commissioner Johnson stated that one of the statements Planning Director Darling had made
5 earlier was that the property owner who was in favor of this action could sue the City.
6
7 Planning Director Darling explained that if the City does not rezone the properties any of the
8 property owners could sue the City.
9
10 Commissioner Johnson asked if there may be a way to get some answers about the trail and
11 some of the potential traffic issues ahead of time before a final decision was made.
12
13 Planning Director Darling stated that a decision could be postponed, but reiterated that the
14 Hennepin County Rail Authority was reactionary. She noted that she could have a conversation
15 with them, but normally they would say that they want to see the actual plans and then they will
16 comment.
17
18 Commissioner Johnson asked if the City could communicate to them that the plans, at some point,
19 would permit eight to ten cars per hour coming out of the site.
20
21 Planning Director Darling confirmed that she could have a conversation with them.
22
23 Chair Eggenberger asked for more information on what Commissioner Johnson's issue was with
24 relation to the trail.
25
26 Commissioner Johnson reiterated that she felt this was a tricky traffic situation in the area because
27 of the driveway location and the boats and it can be difficult to see who is there or who may be
28 on it. She stated that the existing situation is tricky enough, so she felt that adding more traffic
29 would make it even trickier.
30
31 Chair Eggenberger gave an example of putting up fencing where people would have to open up
32 a gate in order to cross and asked if that would preclude passing the rezoning because that would
33 also be tricky for people to cross.
34
35 Commissioner Johnson explained that she actually felt it was more than just tricky and would be
36 unsafe, if there is a lot of traffic there.
37
38 Commissioner Gorham stated that if the Commission was interested in recommending approval,
39 he felt that they could add to their recommendation that they had concerns about the intersection
40 of the trail and the shared driveway and also general traffic concerns with the potential number of
41 units. He stated that they can let the Council decide what they want to do with that information.
42
43 Commissioner Holker noted that she was looking at minutes from the October 1, 2024 meeting
44 and they did talk about this zoning district at that meeting. She explained that she was wondering
45 if they had discussed it at a meeting she missed and if that may pertain to what was being
46 discussed tonight. She noted that the minutes show that the Commission had recommended
47 approval of the R-313 zoning district.
48
49 Commissioner Gorham stated that the difference here is that the Commission was making
50 changes to the zoning and not necessarily the application of the zoning to the City.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 12 of 17
1 Commissioner Holker stated that she understood that but wanted to know if there had been any
2 discussion at the October meeting that may pertain to tonight's discussion that may be helpful for
3 her and Commissioner Johnson to know about.
4
5 Chair Eggenberger stated that there was not, because they were just looking at what the
6 conditions would be for the new zoning.
7
8 Commissioner Gorham stated that he agreed with Planning Director Darling that a few years ago
9 there was a lot of discussion about this and noted that the decision was made by the Council that
10 this was how the Comprehensive Plan would be driven which has not trickled down to the zoning.
11 He stated that the idea of letting the individual property owners apply for rezoning was interesting,
12 but that is not what the City does, because they have the Comprehensive Plan, which means they
13 look at land use on a larger scale. He stated that, for him, this has been determined by elected
14 officials who have made this decision with direction from the Met Council. He noted that the
15 concerns are traffic and if he were to recommend approval, he would add a review of what traffic
16 impacts this may have based on the range of units allowed prior to looking at a development. He
17 stated that he felt they may almost want to have a moratorium on development until they
18 understood the traffic impacts of these sites.
19
20 Chair Eggenberger stated that, for him, this comes down to just another step in a long process
21 that has been going on for a long time. He stated that what the City does from here on out is
22 really driven by the Met Council, as far as density, and what was being presented tonight was the
23 best option that the City has been able to come up with.
24
25 Commissioner Johnson asked if there was any limit on income or affordability for the units. She
26 noted that in past minutes, either the Commission or the Council, she thought there had been that
27 kind of discussion and asked if she was correct in thinking that they applied to these parcels.
28
29 Planning Director Darling explained that it applied to the zoning district and also applied to creating
30 some affordable housing in the City and was why the Met Council had required that the City have
31 areas set aside that could develop with at least eight units per acre or greater. She explained
32 that this was specifically to allow for some affordable housing and noted that the R-313 district was
33 set up so they could develop up to a certain density at market rate, but if they wanted to go up to
34 the full thirty units per acre, they would have to provide the difference between twenty-four and
35 thirty units per acre as affordable units to the families that would be in the sixty percent of the
36 Average Median Income (AMI) for the area.
37
38 Commissioner Holker stated that she felt that this was one step in the middle of a really long
39 process. She explained that she could say 'no' but was not sure that would actually do anything
40 because she agreed that the City needed to find the parcels someplace. She stated that she
41 would support what has been presented tonight, because it had essentially already been done
42 because it was included in the Comprehensive Plan.
43
44 Commissioner Gorham asked if anyone else would support his suggestion to include additional
45 recommendations to the Council related to the traffic situation related to the trail.
46
47 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would support that.
48
49 Commissioner Holker stated that she could support that as well.
50
51 Planning Director Darling stated that they cannot condition a rezoning.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 13 of 17
2 Commissioner Holker asked if they could condition their recommendation of the rezoning.
3
4 Commissioner Gorham asked if they could make a recommendation that the Council would
5 consider the traffic situation related to the trail. He stated that the Commission could recommend
6 approval of the request but would also recommend that the Council consider looking at traffic and
7 safety more closely at this location.
8
9 Planning Director Darling stated that they could make that recommendation with development,
10 but that would be done anyway, whenever development actually occurs. She explained that the
11 Comprehensive Plan included the traffic that was likely to be generated from these three parcels,
12 so those impacts have already been considered. She stated that if there was development
13 proposed on any of these parcels, the City would look at the impacts, at a micro -level, in these
14 areas and not the broader implications of traffic across the metro area.
15
16 Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not think it was really across the metro area and was
17 just in a pretty confined area in this location. She stated that she did not understand what Planning
18 Director Darling had said that this had already been dealt with already and asked if they had
19 looked at the number of units per acre up to thirty units and then assessed all the cars that could
20 be coming back and forth with the maximum number of units.
21
22 Planning Director Darling stated that it was looked at with the Comprehensive Plan as part of all
23 of the changes that were considered as part of the broader reach of it. She stated that she had
24 looked at how many units would be generated from each one of these uses and had looked at
25 the range of uses that were allowed.
26
27 Commissioner Gorham asked if a traffic study was performed in 2020.
28
29 Planning Director Darling clarified that it was not a specific traffic study for this one area, but the
30 traffic impacts and the changes that were needed to the entire City with the land use plan that
31 was made had all been part of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the transportation
32 section is a huge part of any Comprehensive Plan.
33
34 Commissioner Gorham asked how they evaluate traffic and if they did modeling.
35
36 Planning Director Darling explained that they look at the impacts from the likely increase of uses
37 and people in the area in a broad sense on the traffic and roadways across the entire City in
38 addition to sewer and water.
39
40 Commissioner Gorham asked about the actual last traffic study that was done that used modeling
41 and whether it was done with the country club development.
42
43 Planning Director Darling stated that there was not a full traffic study with that development but
44 there was an ad hoc traffic committee that looked at possible impacts of traffic in the wider area.
45 She noted that they had made several recommendations, some of which have been implemented.
46
47 Commissioner Johnson asked if that had been done at the time the decision was made to rezone
48 it.
49
50 Planning Director Darling explained that it was done at the time the Comprehensive Plan was
51 changed to allow development in the area.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 14 of 17
1
2 Commissioner Gorham asked if there had been a traffic study done for the development on
3 Eureka and Highway 7.
4
5 Planning Director Darling stated that there was some traffic impact looked at for that development,
6 but noted that it was not a full study. She stated that when the coffee shop moved in near Vine
7 Hill Road there was a full traffic study which included requiring turn lanes in and out as well as
8 improvements to a nearby intersection.
9
10 Commissioner Gorham stated that Planning Director Darling did not seem to want the
11 Commission to include his suggestion as a recommendation but asked what harm it would do.
12
13 Planning Director Darling explained that they could include it, but reiterated that they cannot add
14 conditions into a rezoning.
15
16 Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like it to be their recommendation to the Council.
17
18 Eggenberger moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the Rezoning of Three
19 Parcels From C-2 To R-3113 by the City of Shorewood, located at 23445, 23425 and 23400
20 Smithtown Road (County Road 19).
21
22 Chair Eggenberger explained that after the Commission voted on this motion, he would like to
23 discuss making a recommendation to the Council possibly through an additional motion related
24 to their concerns about traffic.
25
26 The Commission discussed the possible second motion and what recommendations the
27 Commission may make to the Council related to traffic and safety of the trail.
28
29 Planning Director Darling stated that a rezoning is either approved or not, and reiterated that they
30 cannot put actual conditions on a rezoning.
31
32 Commissioner Gorham stated that he did not think the Commission intended to put in additional
33 conditions, but did want to share with the Council that while they were recommending rezoning
34 the parcels, they also had concerns about traffic and safety in relation to the trail crossing in that
35 location.
36
37 Chair Eggenberger noted that Councilmember Zerby was present at tonight's meeting and he felt
38 fairly confident that he would be able to relay the Commission's feelings about this to the rest of
39 the Council.
40
41 Commissioner Johnson reiterated that she really had concerns about the trail and the safety of
42 those using it in addition to the importance of the involvement in the people who own the trail.
43
44 Motion passed 3/1 (Johnson opposed).
45
46 Planning Director Darling stated that she would pass along the Commission's concerns to the
47 Council related to traffic, safety, and the trail crossing.
48
49 Commissioner Johnson noted that she was scheduled to make the presentation to the Council on
50 tonight's discussion, so she could also share their overall concerns.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 15 of 17
1 Planning Director Darling stated that this would go before the City Council on December 9, 2024.
2
3 Chair Eggenberger stated that he thought he was presenting to the Council that night.
4
5 Planning Director Darling explained that Commissioner Johnson would be reporting to the Council
6 about tonight's meeting at the November 25, 2024 meeting and noted that two of their items would
7 be on the December 9, 2024, agenda. She noted that Commissioner Johnson can report on
8 everything discussed tonight when she presents at the November 25, 2024, City Council meeting
9 even if those items were not slated to be on the Council's agenda until December 9, 2024.
10
11 Commissioner Johnson noted that she did not think she would also be able to attend the
12 December 9, 2024, City Council meeting so she would plan to provide a statement for Chair
13 Eggenberger to share at that meeting.
14
15 C. PUBLIC HEARING — FEE INCREASES
16 Applicant: City of Shorewood
17 Location: City -Wide
18
19 Planning Director Darling explained the City initiated request to increase planning and land use
20 escrows and gave an overview of the recommendation from staff.
21
22 Commissioner Holker asked how Shorewood compared to other cities.
23
24 Planning Director Darling stated that she tracks fees pretty closely and every fall takes a look at
25 the surrounding communities and believed that the application fees were pretty consistent, but
26 the escrows have been different. She explained that communities that have in-house staff that
27 review applications do not require as large of an escrow deposit because they were already
28 paying the staff members for their time to review them. She stated that Shorewood has to hire
29 companies, such as attorneys, planners, and engineers, to review some of the applications that
30 are received.
31
32 Commissioner Gorham asked if the City ever charged staff time if staff does end up reviewing the
33 applications.
34
35 Planning Director Darling stated that some of their costs are paid for reviewing developments by
36 the fees and that would be only when they are starting to get to plat, PUDs, rezoning. She
37 explained that those fees were set higher in order to pay for a portion of the staff time, but noted
38 that the escrows are primarily to cover the consultant fees.
39
40 Commissioner Gorham asked how old the numbers were.
41
42 Planning Director Darling stated that they had made some changes to the amounts of the escrows
43 about two years ago. She stated that last year the city had increased the fees because they had
44 increased the amount of notification which also involved additional staff expense. She stated
45 that she did not think that they needed to increase the fees this year, but did feel the escrow
46 increases were needed.
47
48 Commissioner Gorham stated that he has always felt a bit like staff was doing the work for them
49 because there is a laundry list of things that have not been looked at yet when these come in for
50 recommendations.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 16 of 17
1 Planning Director Darling asked who he felt was not doing their job.
2
3 Commissioner Gorham clarified that he was referring to the developers.
4
5 Planning Director Darling noted that it can be challenging because the City only has a limited
6 amount of time to review the application and explained that she can keep having the developers
7 make changes, but they would most likely run out of time.
8
9 Chair Eggenberger asked if the escrow was used up, if the City had trouble collecting additional
10 funds.
11
12 Planning Director Darling stated that for plats and developments, she does not let them record
13 their plats if they are in arrears on any payments. She explained that one concern she had was
14 when developers have not purchased the property, but have the property owners' permission to
15 submit the applications, which meant that if anything was unpaid, if they chose to walk away, it
16 would be assessed to the property.
17
18 The Commission asked questions of staff about the inner workings of the escrow fund collection,
19 its usage, and when they would be refunded to the developers.
20
21 Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 8:47 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
22 Hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Eggenberger closed the public hearing.
23
24 Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, recommending approval of an Ordinance Approving
25 Amendments to the Shorewood City Code Chapter 1301.03 (Land Use Fees) . Motion
26 passed 410.
27
28 5. OTHER BUSINESS
29
30 Planning Director Darling congratulated Commissioner Gorham on his election to the City Council.
31 She noted that two of the Commission members terms would be expiring in February and noted
32 that she had placed applications, if they would like to apply to serve another term. She stated
33 that they would also begin looking for a Commissioner to complete Commissioner Gorham's term
34 since he would be leaving to join the City Council.
35
36 Commissioner Johnson explained that she would not be reapplying for another term.
37
38 Planning Director Darling asked for a volunteer to talk with Communications Coordinator Wilson
39 as he works to put together an article in order to recruit other Commission members. She
40 explained that he would like to know things like what they liked about serving on the Commission.
41
42 6. REPORTS
43
44 Council Meeting Report
45
46 She noted that Councilmember Zerby had to leave the meeting. She gave a brief overview of
47 matters discussed and the action taken at recent Council meetings.
48
49 Draft Next Meeting Agenda
50
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
Page 17 of 17
Planning Director Darling stated that on the December 3, 2024, agenda they will be looking at
three different code amendments and would also have their consultants present who were
working on the subdivision code rewrite.
Commissioner Gorham asked when the last Planning Commission meeting for this group would
be.
Planning Director Darling stated that for this group, it would be February 7, 2025, but for
Commissioner Gorham, it would be December 3, 2025.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Gorham moved, Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
November 19, 2024, at 9:05 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
07M
0
Item
4A
City ofShore wood Planning Commission Meeting Item
Title/Subject: City Code Amendments — Sacred Communities & Micro Unit Dwellings
Meeting Date: December 3, 2024
Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, City Planner
Reviewed by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: Proposed City Code Amendments
Statutory Requirements
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: City -Wide
REQUEST
During the 2023 legislative session,
the State of Minnesota adopted state
statute § 327.30 which requires cities
to allow religious institutions to site
micro unit dwellings on religious
institution property to house
chronically homeless individuals,
extremely low-income individuals,
and volunteers as part of a sacred
community. Cities are also required
to permit sacred communities either
via a permitted use or conditional use. A copy
of the state statute, which went into effect
January 1, 2024, is attached for reference.
Photo Courtesy Mosaic Christian Community, St. Pout, MN
The purpose of the proposed City Code amendments is to align the City Code with the
requirements of state statute, identify how the City of Shorewood will permit sacred
communities, and clarify setback requirements. Proposed City Code amendments are attached
for review.
A public hearing notice was published in the City's official newspaper at least 10 days prior to
tonight's meeting and was posted on the City's website and at City Hall. Notices were also
emailed to all persons who requested copies of public notices.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
The majority of the proposed amendments are not substantive policy changes. Instead, they
incorporate definitions from state statute into the City Code and clarify which existing City Code
requirements apply to sacred communities. Due to the restrictive nature of the state statute,
the City does not have the ability to incorporate any additional requirements beyond what is
already included in the proposed amendments.
The only choice statute allows the City to make when it comes to permitting sacred
communities is whether they will be regulated as a permitted use or as a conditional use. At
first glance, it would seem like it would make sense to utilize the conditional use permit process
for sacred communities. However, statute specifies that if a city chooses the conditional use
permit process it is not able to apply any additional standards beyond what is required by state
statute and must approve the conditional use permit if it meets statutory requirements.
Because of these statutory limitations, the conditional use permit process does not provide any
additional level of review and City staff feels it does not make sense to be utilized when it
comes to sacred communities.
Staff have observed that when residents attend public hearings, they expect their opinions to
be taken into account. When their well -thought-out concerns and suggestions don't lead to
changes in a project, they can become disillusioned with the City and government in general.
Due to the way the state statute is structured, public input may have little impact on whether a
sacred community is permitted on a specific property. There is also the potential for future
staff, Planning Commission members, or City Council members to assume they can impose
conditions on a sacred community to mitigate its impact on nearby properties, when in reality,
no conditions beyond what is allowed in state statute can be imposed by the City Council.
Since statute already requires sacred communities to certify to the City annually that they meet
statutory requirements, City staff would recommend sacred communities be regulated as a
permitted use. The proposed amendments have been drafted accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION & REQUESTED ACTION
City staff recommends approval of the proposed City Code amendments. The Planning
Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the proposed City Code amendments and
make a recommendation to the City Council.
ORDINANCE TBD
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
SHOREWOOD CITY CODE CHAPTER 1201 RELATIVE TO SACRED COMMUNITIES AND MICRO -
UNIT DWELLINGS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: AMENDMENT. That the Municipal Code of Shorewood, Minnesota, Chapter 1201,
Section 1201.02 and 1201.03, is hereby amended as set forth below by adding the underlined
language and deleting the stF+kethFaugI4 language as follows:
1201.02 DEFINITIONS.
SACRED COMMUNITY RELATED. The terms defined in this section apply only to the
requirements of City Code 1201.03 Subd. 2. w. Sacred communities and micro unit dwellings.
a. CHRONICALLY HOMELESS. An individual who:
(1) Is homeless and lives or resides in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe
haven, or in an agency shelter;
ll Has been homeless and living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation,
a safe haven or in an emergency shelter continuously for at least one year or on at
least four separate occasions in the last three years; and
(3) Has an adult head of household, or a minor head -of -household if no adult is present
in the household with a diagnosable substance use disorder, serious mental illness,
developmental disability, post -traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments
resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability, including the co -
occurrence of two or more of those conditions.
b. DESIGNATED VOLUNTEERS. Persons who have not experienced homelessness and have
been approved by the religious institution to live in a sacred community as their sole form
of housing.
c. EXTREMELY LOW INCOME. An income that is equal to or less than 30 percent of the area
median income adjusted for family size as estimated by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
d. MICRO UNIT. A mobile residential dwelling providing permanent housing within a sacred
community that meets the requirements established by Minnesota State Statute § 327.30,
Subd. 4, as amended
e. SACRED COMMUNITY. A residential settlement established on or contiguous to the
grounds of a religious institution's primary worship location primarily for the purpose of
providing permanent housing for chronically homeless persons, extremely low-income
persons and designated volunteers that meets the requirements established by
Minnesota State Statute § 327.30, Subd. 3, as amended
1201.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Subd. 2. General building and performance requirements.
w. Sacred communities and micro unit dwellings.
(1) Micro unit dwellings in sacred communities are permitted accessory uses to all
religious institutions located in any zoning district consistent with the requirements of
Minnesota State Statute § 327.30, as amended.
(2) Consistent with manufactured homes, micro unit dwellings in sacred communities
shall comply with all setback requirements for the zoning district in which they are located.
(3) Micro unit dwellings in sacred communities located within a Shoreland District shall
comply with the requirements of City Code 1201.26.
Section 3: This Ordinance xxx adopting the Amendments to City Code, Chapter 1201,
relative to sacred communities and micro -unit dwellings shall take effect upon publication in
the City's official newspaper.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 91h day of
December, 2024.
JENNIFER LABADIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
SANDIE THONE, CITY CLERK
® Item
4B
City of Shorewood planning Commission Meeting Item
Title/Subject: City Code Amendments — Administration, Amendments, Conditional
Use Permits and Interim Use Permits
Meeting Date: December 3, 2024
Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, City Planner
Reviewed by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: Proposed City Code Amendments
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: City Wide
REQUEST
As part of the ongoing process of updating the City Code, City staff found that the review
criteria for conditional use permits were removed from the City Code in error. In response, the
proposed City Code amendments are being brought forward to correct this error and address
other issues of clarity, consistency or relevance. Proposed City Code amendments are attached
for review. A public hearing notice was published in the City's official newspaper at least 10
days prior to tonight's meeting and was posted on the City's website and at City Hall. Notice
was also emailed to all persons who have signed up to be notified of public hearings.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
The proposed City Code amendments are not substantive policy changes that clarify existing
City Code requirements and review processes. These include updating the terminology for
interim use permits to match state statute and correcting references throughout the City Code,
reinserting review criteria for conditional use permits, reorganizing some sections for clarity,
creating consistent requirements across multiple applications, clarifying site plan review
requirements, and other minor grammar and terminology changes.
One notable minor amendment that is being proposed would allow financial guarantees to be
collected for site plan reviews. The City Code already authorizes financial guarantees to be
collected for other applications including conditional and interim use permits, and the proposed
amendment would extend this authorization to site plan reviews as well. It is important that
financial guarantees be included as part of the site plan review process as they allow the City to
ensure that all approved improvements have been completed as part of an application.
RECOMMENDATION & REQUESTED ACTION
City staff recommends approval of the proposed City Code amendments. The Planning
Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the proposed City Code amendments and
make a recommendation to the City Council.
ORDINANCE TBD
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
SHOREWOOD CITY CODE CHAPTER 1201 RELATIVE TO ADMINISTRATION, AMENDMENTS,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, AND INTERIM USE PERMITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: City Code Section 1201.02 is hereby amended as set forth below by adding the
underlined language and deleting the strikethmugk language as follows:
1201.02. DEFINITIONS.
INTERIM USE. A temporary use of property until a particular date, until the
occurrence of a particular event or until the use is no longer allowed by zoning regulations.
INTERIM USE PERMIT. A permit issued by the City Council in accordance with
procedures specified in § 1201.04 of this code.
SECTION 2: City Code Section 1201.03, Subd. 2. c. is hereby amended as set forth below by
adding the underlined language and deleting the stFikethFeugti language as follows:
1201.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Subd. 2. General building and performance requirements.
c. Property development.
(4) Except in the case of planned unit development as provided for in § 1201.06 of this
chapter, not more than one principal building shall be located on a lot. The city may, by interim
use permit, allow a single-family residential dwelling to remain on a lot while a new
dwelling is being constructed on the same lot, provided that:
(a) The new dwelling shall conform to the setback requirements of the zoning district in
which it is located;
(b) Construction of the new dwelling shall not result in substantially greater site
alteration (for example, tree removal or grading) than if the original house is first removed;
(c) The property owner must provide an estimate from a licensed contractor for the
cost of removing the original dwelling and restoring the site. From this estimate the city shall
require a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150% of the estimate to ensure that
the original dwelling will be removed within two weeks of the date that a certificate of
occupancy is issued for the new dwelling. In no instance shall the original home remain on the
property longer than two years;
(d) The property owner shall provide the cash escrow or letter of credit referenced in (c)
above at the time a building permit is issued for the new dwelling. The new dwelling shall not
be occupied until a certificate of occupancy has been issued; and
(e) The request shall be subject to the requirements of § 1201.04 Subd. 4. of this
chapter.
SECTION 3: City Code Section 1201.03, Subd. 17 is hereby amended as set forth below by
adding the underlined language and deleting the StFiI(eth.-. WgI language as follows:
Subd. 17. Plan review.
a. Purpose. The purpose of this subdivision is to establish a formal plan review procedure
and provide regulations pertaining to the enforcement of site design and
construction standards as agreed to by the contractor through per their officially
submitted plan documents. The provisions of Section 1201.04 apply to plan review applications
with the exception of public notice and public hearing requirements.
b. Plans required. In addition to other plan requirements outlined in this chapter, site and
construction plans will be required and shall be submitted to and approved by the Building
OffiEial Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any building permit.
c. City Council action. Except in the case of minor projects, additions or alterations as
determined by the Zoning Administrator, all building and site plans for multiple- family or
commercial construction shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval
by the City Council.
d. Plan agreements. All site and construction plans officially submitted to the city shall be
treated as a formal agreement between the buildiRg eeptFaete applicant and the city. Once
approved, no changes, modifications or alterations shall be made to any plan detail, standard or
specification without prior submission of a plan modification request to the guiliR
8ffie+;IZoning Administrator for his eF heF their review and approval.
e Performance agreement and guarantee A performance agreement and guarantee may
be required to be executed for plan reviews in accordance with City Code 1201.04, Subd. 3. f.
when recommended by the Zoning Administrator and approved by the City Council.
ef. Enforcement. The Building Official or Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to
order the stopping of any and all site improvement activities, when and where a violation of the
provisions of this section has been officially documented by the Building Official or Zoning
Administrator.
SECTION 4: City Code Section 1201.04 is hereby amended as set forth below by adding the
underlined language and deleting the stFikethFOUgI4 language as follows:
1201.04 ADMINISTRATION, AMENDMENTS, A4P CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND INTERIM
USE PERMITS.
Subd.1. Procedure.
a. Pursuant to M.S. § 15.99, an application for a conditional use permit shall be approved or
denied within 60 days from the date of its official and complete submission unless extended
pursuant to statute or a time waiver is granted by the applicant. Pursuant to M.S. § 15.99, the
city staff is hereby authorized to extend the 60-day time limit by a time period not to exceed 60
additional days, provided written notice of such extension is provided to the applicant before
the end of the initial 60-day period.
b. Application. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, all applications for
any amendments to map or Chapter, site plan, conditional use permit, interim use permit, land
use permit, variance, or for any other city approval required by this chapter, or to amend this
chapter, shall be made in writing on a form provided by the cite, if the eoty l4a ^ fef , to the
Zoning Administrator.
The application shall be accompanied by a fee and escrow deposit as provided for by City
Council ordinance. This fee shall not be refunded.
The application shall also be accompanied by one hard copy and one electronic copy (in a
format identified by the Zoning Administrator) of detailed written and graphic materials fully
explaining the proposed change, development or use and as may be listed elsewhere in City
Code.
The Zoning Administrator is authorized to reject in writing any incomplete application within 15
business days of receipt, stating the reasons of for its reiection, including what information is
missing. This rejection shall be sent by first-class mail or email to the applicant. Every
application shall contain the legal description of the property and a statement of the specific
permit or action being sought. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the city from
requesting additional information from the applicant upon which to base a decision.
c. Staff review/technical assistance reports. Upon receipt of a complete application for an
amendment, er conditional or interim use permit, the Zoning Administrator shall, when deemed
necessary, refer the request to appropriate staff to insuFe ensure that informational
requirements are complied with. When all informational requirements have been complied
with, the request shall be considered officially submitted. Also, when deemed necessary, the
Zoning Administrator shall instruct the appropriate staff persons to prepare technical reports
and/or provide general assistance in preparing a recommendation on the request to the
Planning Commission and City Council. The Zoning Administrator shall also instruct the
appropriate staff persons to mail notice to property owners within the required public
notification distance for the respective application and post signage on or in front of the subiect
property indicating that an application is under consideration.
plan, cend-iftienal use permit, land use permit, vaFiaRee, er feF aRy ether city appreval FequiFed
by this ehapter-, or te amend this rehapter-, shall be made iR WF44ng eR a feFM pFevided by the
ThiS FejectieR Shall be seRt by f#St elass mail to the applireant. Every appNeatien shall
being seught. Nething iR this sectien shall be deemed te pFevent the city fFeM Fequ
d. Public hearing. Upon official submission of the request, the Zoning Administrator shall
set a public hearing on the request for amendments conditional use permits or interim use
permits for a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting and publish a notice in the
official newspaper no less than ten days prior to the hearing. The notice shall contain a
description of the request and the time and place of the public hearing. Written notification of
the hearing shall also be mailed at least ten working days prior to the date of the hearing to all
owners of land within 500 feet of the boundary of the property related to a conditional/interim
use permit and 750 feet of the boundary of the property related to an amendment. Failure of a
property owner to receive the notice shall not invalidate any proceedings as set forth within this
chapter.
e. Referral to City Council. Upon receipt of the Planning Commission report and
recommendation, the Zoning Administrator shall place the request and any report and
recommendation on the agenda of the Rext an upcoming regularly scheduled meeting of the
City Council.
f. City Council action. Upon receiving the request and any report and recommendation of
the Planning Commission and the city staff, the City Council s44
hold a public heaFiRg if dAPMPd MR
and shall make a decision on the request and nerd
as deemed necessary adopt findings of fact.
(1) Approval of a request for a zoning district amendment, where the classification of a
property will change from residential to commercial, shall require passage by a four -fifths vote
of the full City Council. Requests for all other zoning district amendments, text amendments and
conditional and interim use permits shall require a simple majority vote of the full City Council.
(2) In the case of a conditional or interim use permit, the Council may impose any
condition it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare
(3) In the case of an amendment, the amendment shall not become effective until the
time as the City Council approves an ordinance reflecting the amendment and after the
ordinance is published in the official newspaper.
(4) Whenever an application for an amendment` e-r-conditional or interim use permit, or
site plan review has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application fe+
affecting substantially the same property shall not be
considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for at least six months from the
date of its denial; a subsequent application affecting substantially the same property shall
likewise not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council for an additional
six months from the date of the second denial, unless a decision to reconsider the matter is
made a simple majority of the full City Council.
Subd.2. Amendments.
a. Initiation. The City Council or Planning Commission may, upon their own motion, initiate
a request to amend the text or the district boundaries of this chapter. Any person owning
real estate, or anyone who has received a property owner's written authorization, within
the city may initiate a request to amend the district boundaries or text of this chapter so
as to affect his or her own real estate.
b. Review criteria. Requests to amend the text or the district boundaries of this chapter
shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and shall be found by the City Council to
meet at least one of the following review criteria:
(1) The zoning district boundary or designation was originally adopted in error or
is no longer consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Times and conditions have changed since the text or district boundaries were
adopted.
Subd. 3. Conditional use permit.
a. Purpose. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the City of Shorewood
with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses
upon the general welfare, public health and safety. IR Maki g thiS deteFFniRatieR, whether e
health and safety.
b. Informotionol requirement. The information required for all conditional use permit
applications generally consists of the following items and shall be submitted with the
application.
(1) Certified survey prepared by a registered licensed surveyor, at a scale of one inch to
ten feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet, 50 feet or 60 feet, which shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) The location and dimensions of boundary lines, buildings, structures, topography,
wetlands, and similar features, and the like;
(b) The distance between boundary lines and buildings, structures and other
improvements;
(c) The location of adjacent buildings located within 20 feet of the exterior boundaries
of the property in question;
(d) The area of the lot and a detailed description of the existing and proposed
impervious surface coverage;
(e) The legal description of the property;
(f) Any public or private easements;
(g) Any municipal utilities, private wells or private on -site wastewater treatment
systems, and other utilities.
(2) Site development plans at a scale of one inch to ten feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet, 50
feet or 60 feet (unless indicated otherwise), which shall include:
(a) Location and dimensions of all proposed buildings on lots and the distance between
proposed buildings and structures to property lines;
(b) Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces;
(c) Vehicular circulation and dimensions;
(d) Architectural elevations (type and materials used in all external surfaces) and
concept floor or room plans at a scale of one inch to four feet, eight feet, 16 feet or as may be
appropriate as determined by the Zoning Administrator;
(e) Lighting plan consistent with § 1201.03 Subd. 2.v. of this chapter;
(f) Curb cuts, driveways, number of parking spaces.
(3) Grading plan, which shall include:
(a) Existing contour;
(b) Proposed grading elevations;
(c) Drainage configuration;
(d) Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations;
(e) Spot elevations;
(f) Proposed road profile;
(g) Graphic scale: all plans shall be expressed as one inch to ten feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40
feet, 50 feet or 60 feet.
(4) Landscape plan, which shall include:
(a) Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed;
(b) Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings;
(c) Location of and material used for all screening devices;
(5) Proof of ownership of the land for which a conditional use permit is requested;
(6) A narrative indicating the proposed use, operational features of the use including, but
not limited to, hours of operation, number of employees, and the like, and compliance with
§ 1201.04 Subd. 1.d. of this chapter;
(7) Any information required by the applicable zoning district;
(8) Other information as determined by the Zoning Administrator or City Council.
c. Review criteria. In reviewing a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council shall consider the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the following review criteria:
(1) The proposed use, and its related construction, would be consistent with the policies
and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The proposed use would be compatible with present and future land uses in the area
and would not tend to or depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(3) Adequate public facilities and services, including existing and anticipated traffic
concerns are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use.
(4) The proposed use conforms to the applicable regulations of the zoning district in
which it is located and otherwise conforms to all applicable regulations of the City Code.
(5) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and general welfare of
the occupants of surrounding lands.
d. Conditions of approval. In permitting a new conditional use permit or amending an
existing conditional use permit the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council
may impose in addition to the standards and requirements expressly specified by this code,
additional conditions that the Planning Commission or City Council consider necessary to
protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. These
conditions may include but are not limited to the following:
(1) Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension;
(2) Limiting the height, size or location of buildings;
(3) Controlling the location and number of vehicular access points;
(4) Increasing the street width;
(5) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces;
(6) Limiting the number, size, location and lighting of signs;
(7) Requiring fencing, screening landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or
nearby property.
(8) The property on which the conditional use is located shall not become in violation of
any requirements of the Shorewood City Code or any conditions imposed by City Council.
ce. Lapse of conditional use permit by non-use. Whenever, within one year after granting a
conditional use permit, the use as permitted by the permit shall not have been completed or
utilized, then the permit shall become null and void unless a petition for an extension of time in
which to complete or utilize the use has been granted by the City Council. The extension shall
be requested in writing and filed with the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days before the
expiration of the original conditional use permit. There Shall "he Re c"apge f9F the filiRg of the
The extension request shall be accompanied by a fee set by the City of Shorewood Fee
Schedule as may be amended. The request for extension shall state facts showing all efforts to
complete or utilize the use permitted in the conditional use permit. The petition shall be
presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and to the City Council for a
decision. The Conditional Use Permit or any amendments thereto shall be recorded at the Office
of the County Recorder.
4f. Performance agreement and guarantee.
(1) Except in the case of pFeduciRg Fesidential pFe single-familv and
two-family properties, upon approval of a conditional use permit, interim use permit, or site
plan, the developer shall execute a performance agreement in the form drafted by the Zoning
Administrator and approved by the City Council and provide a letter of credit, or cash deposit
prior to the issuance of building permits or beginning the proposed improvements or
development and shall remain in place until the project is completed. The letter of credit shall
automatically renew until all approved improvements have been completed as determined by
the Zoning Administrator/City Engineer and shall guarantee conformance and compliance with
the conditions of the conditional use permit and the ordinances of the city. The Zoning
Administrator may periodically reduce the financial guarantee based on the completion of
improvements, as outlined in the agreement.
(2) The security shall be in the amount of one and one-half times the City Engineer's or
City Building Official's estimated costs of labor and materials for the proposed improvements or
development. The project can be handled in stages upon the discretion of the City Engineer and
Building Zoning Administrator.
(3) The city shall hold the security until completion of the proposed improvements or
development and a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with the conditional use
permit and ordinances of the city has been issued by the City Building Official.
(4) Failure to comply with the conditions of the conditional use permit, interim use
permit, site plan, or City Code the ^"d'i^-a^rC^S "f the rainy shall result in forfeiture of the security.
f. Revocation. A conditional use permit may be revoked if there is not substantial compliance
with the conditions of approval.
Subd. 4. Interim teal use permit.
a. Purpose. The purpose and intent of an Interim dal Use Permit is:
(1) To allow a use for a brief period of time while permanent location is obtained or
constructed; or
(2) To allow a use that is presently judged acceptable by the City Council, but that with
anticipated development or redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future; or
(3) To allow a use that is reflective of anticipated long-range change to an area and that is
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, provided that the use maintains harmony and
compatibility with surrounding uses and is in keeping with the performance standards of this
code; or
(4) To provide a mechanism for allowing changes to a nonconforming use of property
contingent upon a plan for cessation of the nonconforming use within a specified period of
time.
b. Informational requirement and procedure. The information required and the procedure
to be followed for all interim eand+tienal use permit applications shall be the same as that
required for a conditional use permit as provided for in this section.
c. Termination. An interim penal use shall terminate on the happening of any of the
following events, whichever occurs first:
(1) The date or event stated in the permit;
(2) Upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued;
(3) Upon change in the city's zoning regulations that renders the use nonconforming;
(4) The redevelopment of the use and property upon which it is located to a permitted or
conditional use as allowed within the respective zoning district.
d. General standards. An interim eeRd+t+enaf use permit shall comply with all of the
following:
(1) Conform to the applicable general building and performance requirements of
§ 1201.03, Subd. 2 of this codei
(2) The use is allowed as an interim use in the respective zoning district;
(3) The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;
(4) The use will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future;
(5) The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for
permission of the use. The conditions shall be set forth in a development agreement between
the property owner and the city, which agreement shall be recorded with the Hennepin County
Recorder or Registrar of Deeds.
e. Conditions of approval. In permitting a new interim dal use permit or amending
an existing interim cenditienal use permit, the Planning Commission may recommend and the
City Council may impose, in addition to the standards and requirements expressly specified by
this code, additional conditions that the Planning Commission or City Council consider
necessary to protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole.
These conditions may include but are not limited to the following:
(1) Increasing the required lot size or yard dimension;
(2) Limiting the height, size or location of buildings;
(3) Controlling the location and number of vehicular access points;
(4) Increasing the street width;
(5) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces;
(6) Limiting the number, size, location and lighting of signs;
(7) Requiring fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or
nearby property.
(8) The property on which the interim use is located shall not become in violation of anv
requirements of the Shorewood City Code or any conditions imposed by City Council.
f. Lapse of interim use permit by non-use. Whenever, within one year after granting an
interim use permit, the use as permitted by the permit shall not have been completed or
utilized, then the permit shall become null and void unless a petition for an extension of time in
which to complete or utilize the use has been granted by the City Council. The extension shall
be requested in writing and filed with the Zoning Administrator at least 30 days before the
expiration of the original interim use permit. The extension request shall be accompanied by a
fee set by the City of Shorewood Fee Schedule as may be amended. The request for extension
shall state facts showing all efforts to complete or utilize the use permitted in the interim use
permit. The petition shall be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and
to the City Council for a decision. The Interim Use Permit or any amendments thereto shall be
recorded at the Office of the County Recorder.
g. Revocation. An interim use permit may be revoked if:
(1) The property is found to be in violation of the conditions listed in the interim
oaf use permit; or
(2) If access to the property for purpose of making an4 inspection is refused to the
Zoning Administrator or it -,their designee. The same nr^,.^« nc+-+hliched fear
rt ni-in the + e-e� im ne iti -.I use permit shall be followed when eensidering
o
r ati l.f an interim eendi+ieR@l u peFR44-.
(1987 Code, § 1201.04) (Am. Ord. 383, passed 3-25-2002; Am. Ord. 389, passed 8-12-2002; Am.
Ord. 550, passed - -2018; Am. Ord. 569, passed 8-26-2019; Am. Ord. 575, passed 12-14-2020)
SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication in the City's official newspaper.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 9th day of
December, 2024.
JENNIFER LABADIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
SANDIE THONE, CITY CLERK
5A
6&1IHKG'1*
Planning 1 Landscape Architecture I Urban Design
Planning Commission Report
To: City of Shorewood Planning Commission
From: Beth Richmond
Date: November 25, 2024
Subject: Subdivision Code Update
Meeting Date: December 3, 2024
Project Introduction
Over the next several months, the City of Shorewood will undergo a process to update its
subdivision code. The intent of the update process is to modernize the code, enhance user -
friendliness, ensure code consistency with local, state, and federal requirements and court
rulings, and incorporate municipal best practices.
HKGi was hired by the City to complete this update process. The project is separated into four
tasks:
1. Project Kick -Off
2. Code Audit
3. Draft Revisions
4. Code Adoption
Representatives from HKGi met with City Staff in September 2024 to kick off the code update
project. At this meeting, Staff provided a description of the issues and concerns that they
regularly experience while administering the subdivision code. From that meeting, as well as our
own analysis, HKGi developed a code audit report which identifies the issues with the current
code and summarizes the potential code updates that the City may wish to consider.
Code Audit Findings
The code audit report identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the City's current subdivision
code in terms of usability, organization, effective standards, and inconsistencies within code
sections and between relevant plans and existing regulations. This report summarizes the
broader issues identified with the current subdivision code in order to provide direction for Staff
and HKGi as the ordinance drafting process begins. The audit report is attached for your review.
Major themes identified as part of the code audit will be discussed in greater detail at the
Planning Commission meeting and include the following:
- Improve usability of the code
- Implement the Comprehensive Plan
- Update and simplify subdivision review procedures
- Enhance park dedication regulations
- Modernize design standards
800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 103
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Planning Commission Report
Subdivision Code Update
December 3, 2024
A more detailed issue list of potential code issues and changes was also created and will be
used by Staff and HKGi to ensure that all issues are addressed.
Planning Commission Discussion
At the meeting, Planning Commissioners will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the
current subdivision code. Commissioners should come prepared to discuss any areas of the
code which may be confusing or challenging to administer. Specifically, Commissioners will be
asked to provide input on the review process for subdivisions which are not processed with a
plat, including minor subdivisions, lot combinations, and registered land surveys.
Next Steps
Commissioners are advised that the City Council will also have the opportunity to provide
feedback on the code update at a January worksession. Council will be focused on policy -level
issues relating to the subdivision code, including required water service, premature subdivisions,
and the procedure for processing non -platted subdivisions.
HKGi will incorporate feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council into the final
audit document. Once complete, HKGi will use the audit document to begin drafting the
updates to the Code. The City is targeting March 2025 as the anticipated completion date for
this project.
Attachment
Draft code audit report
2
City of Shorewood
Code Audit
Introduction
HKGiPlanning I Larchitecture Urban Oeslgn
The City's subdivision regulations were first adopted in 2002, and have seen only targeted
updates since then. After two decades, the existing regulations as a whole have become
outdated and are no longer effective for Staff and the community. In August 2024, the City of
Shorewood selected HKGi, a Minneapolis -based consulting firm with extensive experience in
code updates, to provide technical assistance in updating the City's subdivision regulations.
Working with HKGi, the City will undertake a comprehensive update of the entire subdivision
code to modernize the regulations, enhance user -friendliness, ensure code consistency with
local, state, and federal requirements and court rulings, and incorporate municipal best
practices.
The subdivision code update project is separated into four tasks:
1. Project Kick-off
2. Code Audit
3. Draft Ordinance Revisions
4. Public Hearing and Adoption of Ordinance Revisions
HKGi met with City Staff in September to kick off the project. At this meeting, Staff provided
further context and understanding of the issues and concerns that they regularly experience
while administering the subdivision code.
The second task is the completion of an audit of the subdivision code. The code audit identifies
the strengths and weaknesses of the City's current subdivision code in terms of usability,
organization, effective standards, and inconsistencies within code sections and between
relevant plans and existing regulations. This report summarizes the broader issues identified
with the current subdivision code to provide direction for Staff and HKGi as the ordinance
drafting process in Task 3 begins. Direction from the City's Comprehensive Plan is also
incorporated into this report. A more detailed list of potential code issues and changes has been
created based on this evaluation and is attached. Staff and HKGi will use this list to ensure that
all issues identified are addressed. The following detailed code evaluation documents are
attached:
Detailed issue list
Existing procedures chart
Potential code reorganization
Major Themes for Improvement
This report highlights major themes for improvement and outlines key areas for specific
improvements that have been consolidated from the detailed issue list. For a complete list of all
recommended updates, see the attached detailed issue list.
Improve Usability of Code
800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 103
Minneapolis, MN 55401
November 25,C ,� H KGi
Shorewood Codede Audit
The current code's organization and language are difficult and often confusing for staff, elected
and appointed officials, and members of the public to use. This is largely due to the current
organizational structure of the code and the updates that have been completed in piecemeal
fashion for the last two decades. Suggested updates to improve the usability of the Code
include the following:
Reorganize code provisions by grouping similar topics together and moving language that is
more frequently used toward the beginning of the chapter.
Consolidate and eliminate redundant and conflicting language where appropriate.
Use illustrations, graphics, and tables where appropriate to explain complex concepts and
standards, compare regulations, and summarize detailed lists of information.
Address inconsistencies in capitalization, terminology, and cross-references that may have
resulted from intermittent updates over the last two decades.
Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Updates to the subdivision code should incorporate all applicable recommendations and policies
of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The plan recommendations that pertain to this subdivision
code update are listed below:
Require all subdivision requests to consider how nearby land might develop in the future,
ensuring new subdivisions do not negatively impact surrounding neighborhoods and street
systems.
Ensure that newly subdivided lots avoid challenging lot configurations such as backlot
divisions, flag lots, and gerrymandered property lines.
Require properties to connect to the municipal water system where it is available when
subdivision requests are for commercial purposes or residential uses. The City reserves the
right to deny permission for a subdivision development or redevelopment for subdivision if
City water is not available at that property.
Incorporate requirements for non -motorized connections into subdivision requests as
identified by the comprehensive plan.
Adjust code regulations to ensure that development agreements are carefully crafted to plan
for future development. For example, public right-of-way can be required for future streets.
Require formal platting procedures for the subdivision of land, allowing metes and bounds
divisions only in the simplest of cases.
Update and Simplify Subdivision Review Procedures
Requirements for the reviewing and processing of subdivision applications are scattered
throughout the code, making it difficult to understand which review process applies to a given
application. HKGi recommends consolidating all procedural requirements into a single section to
more easily find these requirements and determine which process should be used.
In an effort to reduce barriers, increase efficiency, and lower costs for both staff and applicants,
several updates are recommended that will streamline the administration and processing
Code Audit 2
November 25, 2024
Shorewood Code Audit
►.HKGi
procedures for subdivision requirements including updating application submittal requirements,
reducing the number of public hearings required, and the creation of an administrative approval
process for simple subdivisions. The proposed updates to subdivision procedures include:
Create a single procedures section to reduce repetition and improve ease of use which
includes sections 1202.03, 1202.04, 1202.08, 1202.09, and 1202.10.
Create a common procedures subsection to eliminate repetitive language.
Update code to align with state statute requirements, particularly pertaining to review
deadlines and subdivision exemptions.
Add language to specify how the City will determine if a subdivision is premature. This may
include requirements for City services such as water.
Review and update application submittal requirements for each individual application to
reflect current city practices.
Simplify the administration of procedures and public hearing requirements. Consider
eliminating public hearings for variance applications in order to streamline the review
process.
Consider the creation of an administrative approval process for certain types of minor
subdivisions when no variances are required.
Clarify the circumstances under which a minor subdivision may be processed.
Enhance Park Dedication Regulations
Section 1202.06 Public Lands, is currently very brief. This section should be a tool for the City to
leverage for the creation of sufficient public open spaces throughout the City. Suggested
updates to this section include the following:
Expand park dedication language to clarify the City's authority to require park dedication,
specify the type of land that is acceptable for dedication, and clarify the circumstances under
which the City will accept land dedication instead of a cash fee.
Separate the dedication requirements for residential and non-residential subdivisions.
As part of this update, review and evaluate park dedication requirements based on a
development's proportionate share. In the future, a full park dedication study should be
completed to determine the appropriate land dedication and fee amount based on the
market value of land and the City's future plans for parks and open space.
Modernize Design Standards
Section 1202.05 Design Standards includes requirements for how subdivisions should be
designed, including lots, blocks, streets, easements, and utilities. These standards should be
updated to reflect 2024 best practices as well as the expectations and current practices of the
community. Recommendations for modernizing design standards include:
Clarify requirements related to lot area, lot size, and density to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning code and to maintain Shorewood's unique character.
Code Audit 3
November 25, 2024
Shorewood Code Audit
ILIHKGi
Work with the City Engineer to update technical standards such as those related to street
size.
Clarify the circumstances under which private streets may be created in the City and
establish design specifications for these roadways to ensure space for emergency vehicle
access.
Consider expanding requirements for water service as part of lot subdivisions.
Allow City to require right-of-way or trail easements in areas that are identified in the
Comprehensive Plan as a non -motorized corridor as part of the subdivision process.
Next Steps
This code diagnosis will be used by HKGi and Staff as a framework for the completion of Task 3:
Draft Ordinance Revisions. HKGi will work with Staff to draft the ordinance revisions from
November to February. Beginning in early 2025, draft language will be available for Planning
Commission and City Council review, with an anticipated adoption date of March 2025 for the
updated subdivision code.
Code Audit 4