Loading...
11-19-2024 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Eggenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Eggenberger; Commissioners Gorham, Holker and Johnson; Planning Director Darling; City Planner Griffiths; and, Council Liaison Zerby Absent: Commissioner Huskins 1. 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 Commissioner Gorham noted that he believed that this may be the first accessory apartment application that he had seen come through the City and asked what made this an accessory apartment and if it had to be self-contained. He asked why this would not simply be considered a remodel. Planning Director Darling explained that it would be creating a separate dwelling unit in the basement, that is separate from the primary structure. She noted that it would have its own access which was an existing back door and explained that the only exterior improvement would be a small walkway down to the back door. Commissioner Gorham asked if the indoor stairs would get blocked off. Planning Director Darling stated that this apartment would not be the entire basement space. Commissioner Gorham asked if the person living here would have to go all the way around if they wanted to go upstairs. Planning Director Darling stated that would be a question for the applicant. Jane Anne Hill, applicant, stated that a mother-in-law's apartment already existed when they moved into their home which is pretty much what this is. She explained that she was going through the legal process of making it an accessory apartment, per the City’s standards, so it was all legal for her brother, who is on disability. She noted that they would not make her brother go all the way around the house in order to come upstairs and explained that there is a door that would separate the remainder of the basement area from the apartment area. She stated that for all intents and purposes, the apartment would be wholly separate, but her brother would be able to come upstairs if he wanted to. Chair Eggenberger noted that he thought this was also the first accessory apartment application that he could remember seeing as well. He asked why they needed the CUP and if they could just move the applicant’s brother into the space. Planning Director Darling stated that they could move her brother in, but they could not create a separate dwelling unit within the property. She stated that she thinks that they want to do it this way so, if the applicant’s brother should ever need a caregiver beyond the applicants, it could also be used as a caregiver apartment in the future which would be a separate household. Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no public comment, he closed the Public Hearing. Gorham moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit For Accessory Apartment request for Peter & Jane Anne Hill at 19660 Sweetwater Curve, subject to the six conditions included in the staff report. Motion passed 4/0. B. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONING THREE PARCELS FROM C-2 TO R-3B Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: 23445, 23425 and 23400 Smithtown Road (County Road 19) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 3 of 17 Planning Director Darling explained that this request was a City initiated application to rezone three parcels from C-2 zoning district to the R-3B zoning district. She noted that the Met Council had completed their review of the City’s updated Comprehensive Plan. As part of that update included the application of the high-density land use designation for these three properties. She reminded the Commission that the high-density land use designation allows between eight and thirty units per acre. She explained that the City was required to amend the zoning map and apply a zoning district to the property that would allow the property owner to develop their property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the Council had recently adopted changes to the R-3B zoning district to allow developments that would be consistent with that high- density land use classification. She reviewed the criteria and analysis that had been done by staff and explained that with this rezoning, the property owners were not required to give up the current uses that these properties were currently operating under and clarified that each of the uses on these properties may continue indefinitely. She stated that they could also sell the property to someone else who would want to use the property in the same manner and gave examples. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of these parcels. Commissioner Gorham asked Planning Director Darling to speak to the wider audience and talk about the evolution of these parcels. He noted that the Planning Commission and the City Council have seen these a few times already but stated that it seemed to be the end of a long process. Planning Director Darling stated that this would be the end of the long process to implement the Comprehensive Plan for these three parcels. She noted that a few years ago there were public hearings to make the change within the Comprehensive Plan and reviewed some of the meetings that had taken place related to changes to the zoning ordinance that would allow development to occur on the parcels that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that this was essentially the last look at this item before they move onto the next group of changes to the ordinance related to medium density, in order to implement the next piece of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gorham reiterated that this was not the first time the Commission had seen this and noted that the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan was part of a longer process that had also included public hearings. He noted that the decisions within the Comprehensive Plan were driven by the Council and asked what had led the Council to these parcels. Planning Director Darling stated that these three sites, in addition to two other existing apartments, along with the two commercial strip centers in the City, were all looked at as potential areas where the City could implement the direction from the Met Council to allow for the City’s share in the regional growth pattern. She explained that this meant that the City was expected to provide at least fifty-five units and the majority of these had to be developed at a density of eight units/acre or greater. She noted that these three sites were looked at for potential redevelopment for small, multi-family projects. Commissioner Gorham asked about the size of these parcels. Planning Director Darling stated that she believed that, altogether, they comprised a total of about 4-4.5 acres of land. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be a potential difference in tax income to the City as a result of redevelopment into an apartment building versus the current use or a different use. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 4 of 17 Planning Director Darling stated that there would always be a tax implication as properties are redeveloped. She stated that if redevelopment occurred, there would probably be an increase in the amount of taxes that the City receives because these properties currently have aging structures. She noted that if the properties were redeveloped as commercial properties it would be more likely that would bring in more tax base than residential. Commissioner Holker asked if her understanding was correct that the owner could keep the businesses, as is, but could also sell it to someone who wanted to continue a commercial usage. Planning Director Darling stated that was correct, but noted that it would have to be the same commercial use. Commissioner Holker asked if they sold the property and the new owner did not want to have the same commercial use if that meant that their only option would be to redevelop. Planning Director Darling stated that the only redevelopment option would be a use consistent with the R-3B zoning district. Commissioner Johnson asked about traffic because there was a statement within the staff report that said that C-2 zoning district allows uses that are more likely to encourage traffic, and yet, the dredging company, does not have as much traffic as a 26-unit apartment building would have. She stated that she believed that each unit had to have two parking stalls, which meant that there would be a potential for 52 vehicles. She noted that the dredging company area has a tricky turn on and off of the main road because of the trail location. She asked if staff had considered this information related to potential traffic patterns is this property were redeveloped. Planning Director Darling stated that usually, staff did not look at site line issues until there were development proposals. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission could put some stipulations in related to safety or if they had to just wait until there was redevelopment. Planning Director Darling stated that they would have to wait for redevelopment. Commissioner Gorham stated that this would not exclude the Council from requiring a traffic study and asked how large the dredging site was. Planning Director Darling stated that she believed it was around 2.5 acres. Commissioner Gorham stated that with that size, at a minimum, they would be looking at 26 units on this parcel. Chair Eggenberger gave the example of buying the garden center site but wanting to put a convenience store on it, but would also sell mulch, and asked if that would still be considered a garden center. Planning Director Darling stated that, in her opinion, that would not be considered a garden center, but that could be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Johnson asked who was responsible for the trail near the dredging site. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 5 of 17 Planning Director Darling stated the trail was on property that is owned by the Hennepin County Rail Authority but the trail was operated by permit from them to the Three Rivers Park District. Commissioner Johnson asked if they had been involved at all related to what this possible traffic pattern could do to the trail. Planning Director Darling stated that her understanding was that if the applicant proposed redevelopment, the Hennepin County Rail Authority would have review authority over any changes. Commissioner Gorham noted that this is a County road. Planning Director Darling confirmed that Smithtown Road was a County roadway and noted that the access into the marina and the dredging property is a shared, private driveway. Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that Commissioner Johnson’s question boiled down to the issue that this site has been rezoned, but it didn’t make sense to add fifty cars to it. Planning Director Darling stated that, at this point, the decision was made for these properties, if at some point in the future they would redevelop, they would need to be able to redevelop to a high-density residential development that conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and the R-3B zoning district. She noted that if the Commission was saying that they wanted to turn down the rezoning because they do not think this was the appropriate land use, she believed that they were two years behind. Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that what Commissioner Johnson was asking was how they could know that this would be a safe thing to do. He asked what would happen if they get further down the road, the City required a traffic study, and the information that they got from the study said that this site cannot operate at this density. Planning Director Darling explained that normally you wouldn’t look at a full traffic study for a permitted use, but they could have them do a site review of the intersection of the private drive and look at the design for site impacts or needed turn lanes into the property. Similarly, with driveways that are proposed on the properties to the south. Commissioner Holker stated that the rezoning had already been including the Comprehensive Plan two years ago and asked what the Planning Commission was doing. Planning Director Darling explained that the Comprehensive Plan said that high-density residential would be the most appropriate re-use of these properties and what the City has done with the R-3B zoning district when they rewrote the district. She explained that they had created a zoning district that would allow a property owner to develop in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan provides the big umbrella on how properties are to develop and the zoning ordinance gives the detail on how they anticipate that development to occur. Commissioner Johnson explained that Planning Director Darling had said that if it was a permitted use there would not be a traffic study and stated that she felt the Commission was being asked to approve something that could cause a traffic problem. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 6 of 17 Planning Director Darling stated that typically a traffic study is performed when they are adding uses that are not foreseen or for conditional uses, for example, adding a drive-thru or proposing substantial development on a property that was not fully comprehended when the zoning district was applied to the property. Chair Eggenberger stated that if a developer develops the property in accordance with the zoning regulations, then a traffic study would not be needed. Commissioner Johnson stated that they would not have the ability to get the traffic study and noted that whether they needed it or not was another issue. Chair Eggenberger stated that they would not have the ability to get it as part of the redevelopment. Planning Director Darling clarified that the City would still require enough traffic information to know whether or not things like turn lanes would be needed or make improvements to site lines. Commissioner Holker asked if the Commission could make a recommendation that these parcels not be rezoned, even though it would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission was being asked to review this particular zoning district that the City had crafted specifically for these three parcels and apply it to the property which requires a public hearing and an official decision by the City Council. Commissioner Holker stated that the Commission could recommend that they do not use the zoning that they had crafted and developed for these parcels. Planning Director Darling confirmed that the Commission could go that route, but noted that if the City does not rezone the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, there would be issues. She stated that, for example, the property owners of these parcels could sue the City because they would be saying that the City would now not give them the right to develop the property the city identified in the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that another problem would be that any redevelopment that would be proposed is of a commercial nature and not high-density residential, the Met Council can refuse to allow sewer extensions for those properties. She stressed that if the City does not take this action, there will be fall-out. Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt that the Commission was sharing a concern that would not be addressed if they approve this. Planning Director Darling stated that it would not be addressed, at this time. Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt it also may not be addressed later. Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt the input that they would get from the public hearing will be related to traffic on Smithtown. He stated that he did not have a problem with the zoning district itself, but having a density between eight and thirty units per acre meant that these parcels could have anywhere between thirty-six up to one-hundred thirty-five units. He asked how the City could make informed decisions based on how much traffic Smithtown can absorb. He asked if the Commission recommended rezoning these three parcels if they could also recommend a traffic study, even though they cannot authorize one. He explained that if he was approving the 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 parcels fit together, because this will have a big effect on the City in the future. He asked what drove the decision on how many units these sites could withstand. Chair Eggenberger stated that they have had discussions in the past about the Met Council and the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that they have that issue going on because the Met Council has the power related to sewer lines and things like that so the City, in a way, has to submit to what the Met Council wants done. He noted that Shorewood was no longer on the outskirts and was becoming an inner suburb and stated that this potential development will create traffic and the City would need to decide whether they want to live with that or not. Commissioner Johnson stated that it will create traffic, but she believes that this would create a safety issue with respect to the trail crossing. She asked what the minimum number of units could be on the parcel near the trail. Planning Director Darling stated that it would be about twenty units because the minimum was eight units per acre. Chair Eggenberger noted that some of this would depend on what the developer proposes. Commissioner Gorham stated that he believed that they would propose the maximum amount and asked how the City could push back on that a bit and communicate the City’s vision for these sites or that they have information that tells the City that the maximum is too much. Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Bob Cunningham, 22375 Murray Street, noted that he had lived in this location for thirty years so he knew this site very well but explained that he was not here as a citizen but was here representing the owner of one of the properties as the Senior Vice-President of development at Kraus Anderson. He noted that he had heard some comments related to traffic and wanted to give his perspective on that and stated that the site was 1.65 acres, so the maximum this could be developed was forty-nine units, but, given the other criteria in the zoning code, such as setbacks and height limitations, they will not be able to get to thirty units/acre on this site. He gave the example of a situation where they would be able to have forty units on the entire site, the traffic counts would be somewhere between eight and fifteen cars per hour traveling to or from the site. He stated that he felt that this site was ‘safety positive’ because it is back a bit from Smithtown Road which meant there would be room for cars to stack. He stated that regarding the trail, there are trail crossings all through Shorewood and Excelsior and explained that wherever they cross a street or a driveway, there is a requirement of the trail user to stop, not the car. He stated that he felt the safety issues and concerns would be able to be addressed as part of the development when it actually comes forward. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was ninety feet to the trail. Mr. Cunningham stated that was roughly the distance, but noted that he had not anticipated that there would be any concerns related to traffic this evening, so he had not done the specific measurements. Commissioner Johnson stated that she had driven this a number of times and noted that it did not see to be that large to her. She stated that part of the problem was also that the trail was a bit 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 actually see. She reiterated that this situation was worrisome to her because the dredging company does not have eight to ten vehicles per hour coming or going. Mr. Cunningham agreed that the trail was a bit elevated and explained that they can work with staff to ensure that the safety issues are addressed when the development proposal comes forward. He clarified that they also did not want to create a safety hazard with any development that they are involved in. Joel Peters, Davis Family, LLC., explained that he represented the property owner at 23425 County Road 19. He stated that he was also here in 2021 when they had objected to the Comprehensive Plan amendment plan and clarified that they had never been in favor of it. He stated that they were talking about a property across the street but were also talking about a blanket zoning issue. He suggested that the City let the individual properties apply for rezoning and address their needs, as things move forward. He stated that as the property owner across the street, they have no desire for this action and continue to object to it for a multitude of reasons. He reiterated that he felt that they should be treated as individuals and the City should allow them to develop as they need to and noted that they have no desire for this to happen and goes against the owner's wishes. He asked what would happen when they needed to improve the existing aging structure in a significant way and what would happen to their current use. Planning Director Darling stated that nothing would happen to their use. Mr. Peters asked if that would be the case if they did something significant, for example, redoing the front elevation or adding an extension or a loading dock. Planning Director Darling explained that they would not be able to expand the building, but would be able to make changes if it did not change the footprint or the volume of the building. Mr. Peters stated that he did not see how this rezoning to multi-family was consistent with the adjacent properties. He read aloud the letter that he had submitted to the City that outlined their objection and asked the Planning Commission to deny the proposed rezoning of their property. Anna Quadi, 23675 Smithtown Road, stated that her thoughts on this matter were related to the potential financial gain because the way it was structured now was for a single development company to come in, buy the land, build it, and then sell it or collect monthly rental income from it. She explained that she would rather see Shorewood residents be able to capture that financial gain and noted that if they were to rezone homes around the City from single-family to multi- family, for duplexes or triplexes, they could still meet the requirements from the Met Council. She stated that she felt it would be minimal and the growth would be done gradually over time and additional traffic would be evenly distributed around the City rather than being very heavily concentrated in one area that is already busy. She stated that had not previously thought about the trail crossing issue, but felt it would be a huge deal. She noted that with her idea, property owners could submit for rezoning based on a lottery system because it could be a great financial opportunity for them. She explained that she would jump on it if she could and her property was already zoned for multi-family housing which was a selling point for her when she purchased the home. She shared other aspects that she felt were positives for the scenario she described, including the creation of real affordable housing, which she felt was the Met Council’s objective. She noted that she understood that moving ahead with the current plan would be easier in some aspects because it was all ready to go, but she did not believe it was the best thing for residents of the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 9 of 17 Commissioner Gorham noted that the 2024 legislative session talked about the ‘missing middle’ which sounded like the proposal being made by Ms. Quadi. Ms. Quadi stated that Minneapolis had gone to this and no longer had single-family zoning anymore in an effort to create affordable housing. She stated that she felt her idea would not impact the neighborhood or change the feel of the City, and would be a good way to create affordable housing without drastically changing the community. Commissioner Gorham stated that he did not think it was an ‘either-or’ situation and this action would not preclude something that what she was suggesting. Ms. Quadi clarified that her thought was to do her proposal instead of what was being proposed tonight. Daniel Longo, 5785 Wooden Cleek Drive, stated that the purpose of the Planning Commission was to look at what the City would look like in the future, so if they do not have all the answers today, he felt that they did not need to commit. He stated that the traffic would be bad if there were one hundred cars in that location and there would be no space to go to or for parking because the water is just four feet underground. He stated that he did not think a traffic study was needed because they know that everything will be backed up here and only someone who does not live in this part of the City could create this kind of plan. He stated that he lives here and getting in and out of the City in peak traffic times can be almost impossible. He noted that this would also bring in more children which meant more bus stops along the street and putting the responsibility for safety onto the users of the trail meant that this will be on children because that is who will use the trail. He stated that the City does not have many commercial areas in the City and asked why they would give away three of those parcels for this use. He stated that he agreed with the idea raised that if the owners want this, they can apply and noted that the owner of the garden center does not want this rezoning, which meant that there were two of the parcel owners that do not want this plan to move forward. He reiterated that he did not feel that the Planning Commission had to make a decision if they did not feel that they had all the information. Curt Hanson, 23985 Smithtown Road, stated that he purchased this property in 1991 and noted that he felt people had a concern about the traffic on the road itself. He explained that when he moved in, traffic was not that bad and has definitely gotten worse and noted that he sometimes has difficulty even getting out of his driveway. He stated that he felt the traffic would get worse whether the City approved this high-density property or not. He explained that he had concerns about the trail and stated that there had been mention of lawsuits from the Met Council or the people that own the land, but he felt there should be a discussion with the people who own the trail as well. He stated that he felt that the Railroad Authority and Three Rivers Park District should be involved and aware of what was going on as well as the potential of building on that property. He stated that it did not sound as though this type of discussion has happened yet. He stated that all three of these parcels have individual property owners and felt that they should have the right to do what they want with their own property and bundling them all together under this plan seemed like they were being forced. He noted that he was also concerned about the tax issue and explained that years ago, several access roads along Highway 7 were closed off which has slowed traffic down all along Yellowstone Trail. He stated that he had attended a meeting at the time where he had raised his concerns that their property values would increase because of that due to having a quieter neighborhood, but nothing was done. He stated that he felt that by rezoning this so a potential developer can come in, it would increase the property value immediately which he felt the City or County should address it by increasing the taxes to accommodate the increased value. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 10 of 17 Beth Brown, 25695 Wildrose Lane, stated that she agreed with some of the things that have already been shared tonight and explained that she did not understand why it had gotten to this point without these vital discussions already taking place. She stated that she did not understand why there was a grand plan developed and had gotten to the ‘now or never’ point but they do not know about the safety of the trail or the traffic and explained that she did not see how they could comfortably accommodate the traffic that was being discussed. There being no additional comment, Chair Eggenberger closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Planning Director Darling noted that there were a few questions brought up during the public hearing that she could address. She stated that she had specific information on the sizes of the properties and explained that the dredging company property was 1.65 acres, the westerly property on the south side of Smithtown Road was .8 acres, and the property where the garden shop is located was 1.1 acres. She stated that she did a quick measurement of the space between the Rail Authority property and Smithtown Road right-of-way and found it was about seventy feet. She stated that there had been a suggestion to rezone properties throughout the City to allow two or three homes on single-family parcels in the City in order to satisfy the Met Council requirement, but explained that the Met Council had indicated that the City had to provide a majority of the fifty-five units at eight units per acre or higher. She noted that allowing one or two additional homes on every single property in the City would not satisfy the Met Council requirement because the density was not high enough. She noted that it could be something that is looked at in the future, but reiterated that it would not satisfy the requirement in this particular instance. She stated that there was a comment that property owners should have the right to do what they want with their property and explained that the City sets limits on the property rights of every single property owner within the City, which is the City’s job, and shared various examples. She explained that the property owners of the trail have been included in the discussion and were given notice about the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan amendments. She noted that they are reactionary and do not usually become involved unless there is a specific question about what would be allowed for trail crossings. She noted that there was a comment shared that there had not been enough discussion on this issue, but explained that there has been substantial discussion over the years on this site, primarily when the Comprehensive Plan was amended. She stated that there were public hearings, public discussions, and all kinds of public meetings that took place, so she would refute the statement that there has not been enough discussion. She reiterated that the action the Commission was being asked to take tonight was to implement zoning changes in order to allow for development that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that tax implications were typically not considered when the City was having significant land use discussions and explained that she did not know what the individual tax implications would be for making this change to the zoning but stated that she did not think there would be much because they would be taxed based on how the property was being used. Commissioner Holker asked if this had been discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Chair Eggenberger stated that it was not discussed at the last meeting. Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt it was about three meetings ago. Commissioner Johnson stated that the Commission had heard from one property owner who was not in favor of this rezoning and asked if the other two property owners were in favor of this change. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 11 of 17 Planning Director Darling stated that one property owner was in favor of it and the other two were not. Commissioner Johnson stated that one of the statements Planning Director Darling had made earlier was that the property owner who was in favor of this action could sue the City. Planning Director Darling explained that if the City does not rezone the properties any of the property owners could sue the City. Commissioner Johnson asked if there may be a way to get some answers about the trail and some of the potential traffic issues ahead of time before a final decision was made. Planning Director Darling stated that a decision could be postponed, but reiterated that the Hennepin County Rail Authority was reactionary. She noted that she could have a conversation with them, but normally they would say that they want to see the actual plans and then they will comment. Commissioner Johnson asked if the City could communicate to them that the plans, at some point, would permit eight to ten cars per hour coming out of the site. Planning Director Darling confirmed that she could have a conversation with them. Chair Eggenberger asked for more information on what Commissioner Johnson’s issue was with relation to the trail. Commissioner Johnson reiterated that she felt this was a tricky traffic situation in the area because of the driveway location and the boats and it can be difficult to see who is there or who may be on it. She stated that the existing situation is tricky enough, so she felt that adding more traffic would make it even trickier. Chair Eggenberger gave an example of putting up fencing where people would have to open up a gate in order to cross and asked if that would preclude passing the rezoning because that would also be tricky for people to cross. Commissioner Johnson explained that she actually felt it was more than just tricky and would be unsafe, if there is a lot of traffic there. Commissioner Gorham stated that if the Commission was interested in recommending approval, he felt that they could add to their recommendation that they had concerns about the intersection of the trail and the shared driveway and also general traffic concerns with the potential number of units. He stated that they can let the Council decide what they want to do with that information. Commissioner Holker noted that she was looking at minutes from the October 1, 2024 meeting and they did talk about this zoning district at that meeting. She explained that she was wondering if they had discussed it at a meeting she missed and if that may pertain to what was being discussed tonight. She noted that the minutes show that the Commission had recommended approval of the R-3B zoning district. Commissioner Gorham stated that the difference here is that the Commission was making changes to the zoning and not necessarily the application of the zoning to the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 12 of 17 Commissioner Holker stated that she understood that but wanted to know if there had been any discussion at the October meeting that may pertain to tonight’s discussion that may be helpful for her and Commissioner Johnson to know about. Chair Eggenberger stated that there was not, because they were just looking at what the conditions would be for the new zoning. Commissioner Gorham stated that he agreed with Planning Director Darling that a few years ago there was a lot of discussion about this and noted that the decision was made by the Council that this was how the Comprehensive Plan would be driven which has not trickled down to the zoning. He stated that the idea of letting the individual property owners apply for rezoning was interesting, but that is not what the City does, because they have the Comprehensive Plan, which means they look at land use on a larger scale. He stated that, for him, this has been determined by elected officials who have made this decision with direction from the Met Council. He noted that the concerns are traffic and if he were to recommend approval, he would add a review of what traffic impacts this may have based on the range of units allowed prior to looking at a development. He stated that he felt they may almost want to have a moratorium on development until they understood the traffic impacts of these sites. Chair Eggenberger stated that, for him, this comes down to just another step in a long process that has been going on for a long time. He stated that what the City does from here on out is really driven by the Met Council, as far as density, and what was being presented tonight was the best option that the City has been able to come up with. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was any limit on income or affordability for the units. She noted that in past minutes, either the Commission or the Council, she thought there had been that kind of discussion and asked if she was correct in thinking that they applied to these parcels. Planning Director Darling explained that it applied to the zoning district and also applied to creating some affordable housing in the City and was why the Met Council had required that the City have areas set aside that could develop with at least eight units per acre or greater. She explained that this was specifically to allow for some affordable housing and noted that the R-3B district was set up so they could develop up to a certain density at market rate, but if they wanted to go up to the full thirty units per acre, they would have to provide the difference between twenty-four and thirty units per acre as affordable units to the families that would be in the sixty percent of the Average Median Income (AMI) for the area. Commissioner Holker stated that she felt that this was one step in the middle of a really long process. She explained that she could say ‘no’ but was not sure that would actually do anything because she agreed that the City needed to find the parcels someplace. She stated that she would support what has been presented tonight, because it had essentially already been done because it was included in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gorham asked if anyone else would support his suggestion to include additional recommendations to the Council related to the traffic situation related to the trail. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would support that. Commissioner Holker stated that she could support that as well. Planning Director Darling stated that they cannot condition a rezoning. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 13 of 17 Commissioner Holker asked if they could condition their recommendation of the rezoning. Commissioner Gorham asked if they could make a recommendation that the Council would consider the traffic situation related to the trail. He stated that the Commission could recommend approval of the request but would also recommend that the Council consider looking at traffic and safety more closely at this location. Planning Director Darling stated that they could make that recommendation with development, but that would be done anyway, whenever development actually occurs. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan included the traffic that was likely to be generated from these three parcels, so those impacts have already been considered. She stated that if there was development proposed on any of these parcels, the City would look at the impacts, at a micro-level, in these areas and not the broader implications of traffic across the metro area. Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not think it was really across the metro area and was just in a pretty confined area in this location. She stated that she did not understand what Planning Director Darling had said that this had already been dealt with already and asked if they had looked at the number of units per acre up to thirty units and then assessed all the cars that could be coming back and forth with the maximum number of units. Planning Director Darling stated that it was looked at with the Comprehensive Plan as part of all of the changes that were considered as part of the broader reach of it. She stated that she had looked at how many units would be generated from each one of these uses and had looked at the range of uses that were allowed. Commissioner Gorham asked if a traffic study was performed in 2020. Planning Director Darling clarified that it was not a specific traffic study for this one area, but the traffic impacts and the changes that were needed to the entire City with the land use plan that was made had all been part of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the transportation section is a huge part of any Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gorham asked how they evaluate traffic and if they did modeling. Planning Director Darling explained that they look at the impacts from the likely increase of uses and people in the area in a broad sense on the traffic and roadways across the entire City in addition to sewer and water. Commissioner Gorham asked about the actual last traffic study that was done that used modeling and whether it was done with the country club development. Planning Director Darling stated that there was not a full traffic study with that development but there was an ad hoc traffic committee that looked at possible impacts of traffic in the wider area. She noted that they had made several recommendations, some of which have been implemented. Commissioner Johnson asked if that had been done at the time the decision was made to rezone it. Planning Director Darling explained that it was done at the time the Comprehensive Plan was changed to allow development in the area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 14 of 17 Commissioner Gorham asked if there had been a traffic study done for the development on Eureka and Highway 7. Planning Director Darling stated that there was some traffic impact looked at for that development, but noted that it was not a full study. She stated that when the coffee shop moved in near Vine Hill Road there was a full traffic study which included requiring turn lanes in and out as well as improvements to a nearby intersection. Commissioner Gorham stated that Planning Director Darling did not seem to want the Commission to include his suggestion as a recommendation but asked what harm it would do. Planning Director Darling explained that they could include it, but reiterated that they cannot add conditions into a rezoning. Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like it to be their recommendation to the Council. Eggenberger moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the Rezoning of Three Parcels From C-2 To R-3B by the City of Shorewood, located at 23445, 23425 and 23400 Smithtown Road (County Road 19). Chair Eggenberger explained that after the Commission voted on this motion, he would like to discuss making a recommendation to the Council possibly through an additional motion related to their concerns about traffic. The Commission discussed the possible second motion and what recommendations the Commission may make to the Council related to traffic and safety of the trail. Planning Director Darling stated that a rezoning is either approved or not, and reiterated that they cannot put actual conditions on a rezoning. Commissioner Gorham stated that he did not think the Commission intended to put in additional conditions, but did want to share with the Council that while they were recommending rezoning the parcels, they also had concerns about traffic and safety in relation to the trail crossing in that location. Chair Eggenberger noted that Councilmember Zerby was present at tonight’s meeting and he felt fairly confident that he would be able to relay the Commission’s feelings about this to the rest of the Council. Commissioner Johnson reiterated that she really had concerns about the trail and the safety of those using it in addition to the importance of the involvement in the people who own the trail. Motion passed 3/1 (Johnson opposed). Planning Director Darling stated that she would pass along the Commission’s concerns to the Council related to traffic, safety, and the trail crossing. Commissioner Johnson noted that she was scheduled to make the presentation to the Council on tonight’s discussion, so she could also share their overall concerns. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 15 of 17 Planning Director Darling stated that this would go before the City Council on December 9, 2024. Chair Eggenberger stated that he thought he was presenting to the Council that night. Planning Director Darling explained that Commissioner Johnson would be reporting to the Council about tonight’s meeting at the November 25, 2024 meeting and noted that two of their items would be on the December 9, 2024, agenda. She noted that Commissioner Johnson can report on everything discussed tonight when she presents at the November 25, 2024, City Council meeting even if those items were not slated to be on the Council’s agenda until December 9, 2024. Commissioner Johnson noted that she did not think she would also be able to attend the December 9, 2024, City Council meeting so she would plan to provide a statement for Chair Eggenberger to share at that meeting. C. PUBLIC HEARING – FEE INCREASES Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-Wide Planning Director Darling explained the City initiated request to increase planning and land use escrows and gave an overview of the recommendation from staff. Commissioner Holker asked how Shorewood compared to other cities. Planning Director Darling stated that she tracks fees pretty closely and every fall takes a look at the surrounding communities and believed that the application fees were pretty consistent, but the escrows have been different. She explained that communities that have in-house staff that review applications do not require as large of an escrow deposit because they were already paying the staff members for their time to review them. She stated that Shorewood has to hire companies, such as attorneys, planners, and engineers, to review some of the applications that are received. Commissioner Gorham asked if the City ever charged staff time if staff does end up reviewing the applications. Planning Director Darling stated that some of their costs are paid for reviewing developments by the fees and that would be only when they are starting to get to plat, PUDs, rezoning. She explained that those fees were set higher in order to pay for a portion of the staff time, but noted that the escrows are primarily to cover the consultant fees. Commissioner Gorham asked how old the numbers were. Planning Director Darling stated that they had made some changes to the amounts of the escrows about two years ago. She stated that last year the city had increased the fees because they had increased the amount of notification which also involved additional staff expense. She stated that she did not think that they needed to increase the fees this year, but did feel the escrow increases were needed. Commissioner Gorham stated that he has always felt a bit like staff was doing the work for them because there is a laundry list of things that have not been looked at yet when these come in for recommendations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 16 of 17 Planning Director Darling asked who he felt was not doing their job. Commissioner Gorham clarified that he was referring to the developers. Planning Director Darling noted that it can be challenging because the City only has a limited amount of time to review the application and explained that she can keep having the developers make changes, but they would most likely run out of time. Chair Eggenberger asked if the escrow was used up, if the City had trouble collecting additional funds. Planning Director Darling stated that for plats and developments, she does not let them record their plats if they are in arrears on any payments. She explained that one concern she had was when developers have not purchased the property, but have the property owners' permission to submit the applications, which meant that if anything was unpaid, if they chose to walk away, it would be assessed to the property. The Commission asked questions of staff about the inner workings of the escrow fund collection, its usage, and when they would be refunded to the developers. Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 8:47 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Eggenberger closed the public hearing. Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, recommending approval of an Ordinance Approving Amendments to the Shorewood City Code Chapter 1301.03 (Land Use Fees) . Motion passed 4/0. 5. OTHER BUSINESS Planning Director Darling congratulated Commissioner Gorham on his election to the City Council. She noted that two of the Commission members terms would be expiring in February and noted that she had placed applications, if they would like to apply to serve another term. She stated that they would also begin looking for a Commissioner to complete Commissioner Gorham’s term since he would be leaving to join the City Council. Commissioner Johnson explained that she would not be reapplying for another term. Planning Director Darling asked for a volunteer to talk with Communications Coordinator Wilson as he works to put together an article in order to recruit other Commission members. She explained that he would like to know things like what they liked about serving on the Commission. 6. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report She noted that Councilmember Zerby had to leave the meeting. She gave a brief overview of matters discussed and the action taken at recent Council meetings. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda 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.