Loading...
02-04-25 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda Packet 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 3 TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2025 7:00 P.M. 4 5 DRAFT MINUTES 6 7 8 CALL TO ORDER 9 10 Chair Eggenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 14 Present: Chair Eggenberger; Commissioners Huskins, Holker and Johnson; Planning 15 Director Darling; and City Planner Griffiths 16 17 Absent: None 18 19 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20 21 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, approving the agenda for January 7, 2025, as presented. 22 Motion passed 4/0. 23 24 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25 26  December 3, 2024 27 28 Holker moved, Johnson seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 29 of December 3, 2024, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 30 31 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 32 33 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE 34 35 5. OTHER BUSINESS – 36 A. Variance from the Side Yard Abutting a Street Setback for a Proposed Portico 37 Location: 6040 Cajed Lane 38 Applicant: Eric Magistad 39 40 City Planner Griffiths reviewed the request for a variance at 6040 Cajed Lane to the side yard 41 setback in order to construct a portico. He noted that the home was built in 1977 and was already 42 grandfathered in and legally non-conforming and was similar to other homes in the neighborhood. 43 He noted that the proposal would be for the portico to be constructed on the existing concrete 44 slab and it would not increase any impervious surface on the property. He outlined the analysis 45 staff had done on this request and explained that they were recommending approval of the 46 variance request with the condition that the applicant obtain all necessary permits for construction 47 by March 1, 2025 and pass all inspections. 48 49 Commissioner Huskins clarified that the variance was not due to the applicant increasing any of 50 their existing non-conformities and was only because it was greater than 4 feet. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 11 of 16 1 Commissioner Johnson referenced the preliminary plat requirements and asked if the third party 2 permissions for things such as trails that go through property had to be identified. 3 4 Planning Director Darling stated that it would not need to be identified and explained that it would 5 be a permit from another jurisdiction that the City would have to see before they could subdivide. 6 7 Commissioner Huskins asked if they could move onto park dedication and asked why there was 8 a difference in the park dedication calculation between residential and non-residential 9 developments. 10 11 Planning Director Darling explained that usually, commercial projects do bot have to pay the same 12 rate of park dedication that residential does which was in direct proportion to the lesser use 13 generated by commercial properties which is why it was changed from 8% to 5%. 14 15 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to see this amount remain at 8% for both 16 commercial and residential. 17 18 Commissioner Huskins asked if a parcel had already paid park dedication at the beginning 19 whether it would be required to pay more if they subdivided. 20 21 Planning Director Darling stated that they be required to pay more, but they would get credit for 22 the amount that they had previously paid. 23 24 Commissioner Johnson asked about subdivision 2 under park dedication regarding cash in lieu 25 of land and suggested that this be struck wherever it appeared in the document because it was 26 primarily based on the value of raw land. She stated that it talks about going into the City Park 27 Fund but there isn’t much said about the use of it once it goes into that fund and explained that 28 she objected because she felt there ought to be a dedication of land because that is a big part of 29 what makes Shorewood what it is today. 30 31 Planning Director Darling explained that Shorewood was a built-out City, according to the 32 Comprehensive Plan which meant that they do not acquire more land for parks unless it was 33 directly adjacent to an existing park or in an area of need, such as south of Galpin Lake. She 34 stated that what the City was looking for with each subdivision was the cash payment and noted 35 that most of the park dedication that the City receives is actually in the form of cash in lieu of land. 36 She explained that this cash goes into a special fund and are used for improvements to existing 37 parks or acquisition of park land. 38 39 Commissioner Johnson stated that this says that you cannot get any more existing land but she 40 felt that they could if they kept the existing percentages. 41 42 City Planner Griffiths stated that one thing to think about is when they talk about acquiring land, it 43 has to be within the boundary of the subdivision, if the City was going to take park land. He 44 clarified that meant that they could not go somewhere else and buy additional property but would 45 mean that if someone, for example, came forward with a 3-lot subdivision on one acre of land, 46 that parkland would have to be contained within the area and would essentially be a postage 47 stamp park. He explained that the park dedication money allows the City to accept the payment 48 and then spend the money in a location to buy land adjacent to an existing park rather than being 49 shoehorned into the exact site location. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 2 of 16 1 City Planner Griffiths explained that the variance was needed because the City Code would 2 require a 50 foot setback for new improvements, but noted that this would not increase the non- 3 conformity and a variance was required because they were at 5 feet. He stated that if it were 4 4 feet or less, it would be considered a permitted encroachment and this process would not be 5 needed. 6 7 Commissioner Holker asked why the building permit had been denied in September 2024. 8 9 Planning Director Darling explained that the building permit was denied because the portico does 10 not meet the setback. 11 12 Eric Magistad, 6040 Cajed Lane, thanked the staff for the work they have done on his behalf 13 through this process. He stated that they have worked with their contractor for the last 9 years 14 and were confident in his ability to deliver on the conditions that were being recommended by City 15 staff. 16 17 Commissioner Huskins noted that the rendering submitted was very different than the existing 18 photograph. 19 20 Mr. Magistad stated that the photo that was submitted to the contractor as their ‘inspiration’ did 21 not really fit the façade of their house. He explained that they know what the dimensions will be, 22 but were not exactly sure what it would end up looking like in the end. 23 24 Holker moved, Huskins seconded, to recommend approval of the variance request from 25 the Side Yard Abutting a Street Setback for a Proposed Portico at 6040 Cajed Lane, subject 26 to the conditions included in the staff report. Motion passed 4/0. 27 28 Chair Eggenberger stated that this item would come before the City Council on January 27, 2025. 29 30 B. Discussion of Subdivision Regulations Amendments Related to Administration and 31 Enforcement Procedures 32 Applicant: City Initiated 33 34 Planning Director Darling explained that the City had hired a consultant to redraft the City’s 35 subdivision ordinances and this discussion was intended to submit feedback to the consultants 36 on their initial draft and also allow them to give whatever other feedback the Commission may 37 have. She explained that the consultants were trying to get all of the administrative pieces of the 38 ordinances into one place so people would not have to skip around between applications types 39 and design standards. 40 41 Commissioner Johnson asked if there were any administrative procedures that would apply now 42 that did not before, for example, if there were zoning administrator approval of things that 43 previously would have been handled in a different manner. 44 45 Planning Director Darling stated that there were some of those differences proposed and they 46 were looking for input from the Commission on those things but explained that if the Commission 47 wasn’t comfortable with those changes, they could be pulled back a bit. 48 49 Commissioner Johnson explained that she was not sure how they would know whether they were 50 comfortable with it or not because they do not know exactly what the impacts may be. She asked 51 if there was something like review by the City Attorney and asked if there was anything that would CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 3 of 16 1 highlight that this item was new to this subsection, but has been in place for another subsection. 2 She stated that the Commission did not have that information and was something that would be 3 difficult for them to be able to do on their own. She reiterated her question on whether there would 4 be City Attorney review that would be required. 5 6 Planning Director Darling stated that the City Attorney would absolutely review these changes. 7 8 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would love to see it highlighted in order to show places 9 where there would no longer be Planning Commission review or a public hearing where there 10 previously had been. She stated that from what she has seen it looks like public hearings have 11 disappeared in some cases. 12 13 Planning Director Darling suggested that they start walking through the draft information included 14 in the packet because she thinks that will make it easier for the Commission to understand. She 15 reiterated that the consultants were trying to consolidate all the procedures in one section and 16 were also trying to make it consistent how each procedures was presented. She explained that 17 one thing she liked was that they were taking all of the comment procedures across the board 18 and were putting them in one section at the beginning which she felt would be helpful because 19 there would not be repeats, but noted that in this draft she had noticed some repeats 20 21 Commissioner Huskins stated that for people looking for information, for example, for a cemetery, 22 what they were looking to do was not applicable to this section. He explained that he felt it would 23 be helpful to include direction to the portion of code that would apply for their situation. 24 25 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would also make that suggestions for items 1 and 2. 26 27 Commissioner Huskins stated that his sense of doing this work was to streamline it in order to 28 make it more readable and easier for people to use which he felt his suggestion would do. 29 30 Planning Director Darling continued review of the draft document and stated that staff could not 31 issue a building permit for any lot that was not created in compliance with the chapter. 32 33 Commissioner Huskins noted that in the building permit section of ‘Common Procedures’ section 34 he was expecting to see a statement that said, ‘here is the process by which you can get a building 35 permit’, but he felt nothing in this section told him how to do that and simply tells him what he 36 could not do. 37 38 Planning Director Darling stated that she understood his point and suggested that 1 and 2 needed 39 to go under Introductory Provisions. She moved the discussion onto the third subdivision related 40 to who would be authorized to file applications and subdivision 4 related to application fees. She 41 noted that she would like to add an additional statement that made it clear that no application 42 would be accepted without the actual application form, so people could not just simply submit 43 their documentation. 44 45 Commissioner Johnson noted that under application fees there is a statement that says that 46 escrow amounts ‘may’ be required and asked if that should be changed to ‘will’. 47 48 Planning Director Darling suggested changing the wording to ‘an escrow amount shall be required 49 by the City, subject to Chapter 1301’. She moved the discussion onto subdivision 5, pre- 50 application meetings and explained that they could come in for a meeting before they actually 51 submit their application in order to allow staff to take a look at it and give initial comments. She CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 4 of 16 1 noted that in the current Code this seemed to be required and she would like to make this more 2 discretionary. She noted that if they come in for a pre-application meeting, she would like to 3 change the language so it is clear that they must bring in a sketch for staff to look at. 4 5 Commissioner Huskins asked if there was a charge to the applicant when there is a pre- 6 application meeting. 7 8 Planning Director Darling stated that there would not be a charge to the applicant in that situation 9 because it would be handled by staff and not consultants. 10 11 Commissioner Huskins gave the example of the City receiving an application that had many holes 12 in it which had not held a pre-application meeting. 13 14 Planning Director Darling acknowledged that was what usually happened. 15 16 Commissioner Huskins stated that he did not think the fees were structured according to how 17 much time staff spends reviewing an application. He explained that he felt that encouraging 18 applications to have the pre-application meeting would end up as a benefit to staff because it 19 would reduce the amount of time they would have to spend correcting issues. He stated that this 20 was why he was thinking, in most cases, it would be better to have a requirement for a pre- 21 application meeting. 22 23 Planning Director Darling noted that most developers come in before they submit their application 24 and meet with staff because it also saves them time and money. 25 26 Commissioner Holker asked if there were any laws that kept the City from requiring a pre- 27 application meeting. 28 29 Planning Director Darling stated that with any planning and zoning application they have the right 30 to submit the land-use applications and she did not think the City could turn it down solely because 31 they had not met with staff ahead of time. 32 33 City Planner Griffiths explained that the other thing that they would potentially run into was 34 possible litigation related to what would really be considered an application requirement. He 35 stated that as soon as you do application requirements then they start triggering review timelines 36 that are required by State statutes. He stated that if they required a pre-application meeting, that 37 would start the clock sooner. 38 39 Planning Director Darling agreed that they would have to be really careful with that timeline but 40 noted that there were cities that required fees just to have basic questions answered. 41 42 Commissioner Huskins stated that if they leave this as discretionary, he asked if there was 43 something that they could include that the procedure or process was intended to encourage this 44 type of meeting, even if it was not required. 45 46 Chair Eggenberger suggested language that simply stated that ‘all applicants were encouraged 47 to meet with the Zoning Administrator’. He asked if the applicant could choose to invite additional 48 city staff to the meeting. 49 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 5 of 16 1 Planning Director Darling explained that sometimes the applicant will say that they have more 2 questions for the engineer, for example. She clarified that she did not think language should be 3 added and should be left to her discretion on who will attend the meeting. 4 5 Commissioner Johnson asked if the Zoning Administrator was a new position. 6 7 Planning Director Darling stated that it was not and was the statutory definition of her principle job 8 duties. 9 10 Chair Eggenberger asked where an applicant would go if they have issue with the Zoning 11 Administrator. 12 13 Planning Director Darling explained that they can appeal it, but noted that in a small town such 14 as Shorewood, they will have to work with her, even if they do not like her because the City staff 15 was too small, so they do not have duplication of duties amongst staff like other cities may have. 16 She explained that the appeal process would go through the Planning Commission and then onto 17 the City Council. She moved the discussion onto subdivision 6, coordination of applications and 18 7, deadline for actions. 19 20 Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt the fees in a situation for coordination of applications 21 needed to be clearly outlined. He suggested that there be language that says that each 22 application fee would be additive and that there would not be a discount for coordination of 23 applications. 24 25 Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not fully understand the deadline for action and noted 26 that she felt it should be based on some application, but if there were a bunch of them bouncing 27 around, she questioned which application the deadline would apply to. 28 29 Planning Director Darling explained that it would be for the complete application for preliminary 30 approval. 31 32 Commissioner Huskins stated that if there were multiple applications, the clock would start ticking 33 when all of them were completed. 34 35 Commissioner Johnson cautioned that she just didn’t want the City to be responsible for having 36 a deadline that was too early due to confusion about what ‘delivery of an application’ really was. 37 38 Planning Director Darling stated that there was a lot of case law on this topic so she did not think 39 it would be confusing for applicants but noted that she would make sure that the City Attorney 40 reviewed this language. She noted that subdivision 8 related to the premature subdivision was 41 not really common so they want to move that. 42 43 Commissioner Huskins asked if there was convention for use of the word ‘premature’. 44 45 Planning Director Darling explained that it was very intentional. 46 47 Commissioner Huskins stated that from a layperson's perspective he felt that by saying something 48 was premature that meant that there was some cure in order to make it mature, but he felt some 49 of the conditions listed were not actually curable. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 6 of 16 1 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and if the applicant cannot solve the problems 2 that were listed, then they should not submit an application for subdividing. 3 4 City Planner Griffiths stated that he felt the word ‘premature’ and much of this had a lot of case 5 law that goes into them. He stated that the word ‘premature’ had been heavily litigated and comes 6 directly from court review for subdivision ordinances. 7 8 Commissioner Huskins asked whether an incurable factor would perpetuate this to be premature 9 for eternity. 10 11 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct, until something resolved the situation and 12 explained that the City had the right to turn it down if the property was essentially not ready to be 13 subdivided. 14 15 Commissioner Huskins explained that he was fine with it but just felt it was a very strange word 16 to use. 17 18 Planning Director Darling noted that in this case, premature meant, not ready. 19 20 Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt some of the conditions were more than not ready and 21 would never be ready. 22 23 Commissioner Huskins referenced item (6) in this section regarding providing public 24 improvements. 25 26 Planning Director Darling acknowledged that she was not sure what that meant and stated that 27 she also had some questions for the consultant about this. 28 29 Commissioner Johnson referenced the language that stated that it must be provided at public 30 expense and asked if that meant that they were supposed to provide a park that was in a 31 subdivision. 32 33 Planning Director Darling stated that many subdividers do that. 34 35 Commissioner Johnson asked if that was how the City wanted it to continue and noted that she 36 felt that there ought to be very little that is actually paid by the public. 37 38 Planning Director Darling agreed that she felt that they needed to have more internal 39 conversations with the consultants about what they intended with this section. She stated that 40 she gets the impression that it was serving as more of a catch-all section, which made her a bit 41 nervous. 42 43 Commissioner Huskins stated that he also questioned the use of the word ‘reasonably’ and gave 44 the example of something that was aesthetically pleasing to one person would not be for another. 45 He questioned what was meant by using the word reasonably in this statement and asked whose 46 reason would take precedence. 47 48 Planning Director Darling reiterated that was something that they would have to discuss with the 49 consultants. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 7 of 16 1 Commissioner Johnson asked if there was anything with a premature application that would come 2 before the Planning Commission. 3 4 Planning Director Darling stated that depending on the type of application, it may come before 5 the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. She moved the discussion onto subdivision 6 11, appeal of decisions and explained that if someone did not like something she decided would 7 be appealed directly to the City Council but noted that in the Zoning Ordinance it would go to the 8 Planning Commission first. She noted that, in this case, they could also have the Commission 9 review it and make a recommendation to the Council as well. 10 11 Chair Eggenberger asked if the 30 days in item 11.b. was statutory. 12 13 Planning Director Darling stated that she was not sure if that was exactly what it said in statute or 14 if they were just putting a time period in there. 15 16 Commissioner Johnson questioned the use of the word ‘delivery’ and if that meant by e-mail, 17 phone call, putting it in USPS, receipt of USPS, or by certified mail. She stated that she felt that 18 30 days was a tight timeline so she felt that there should be something that talks about specifics 19 related to delivery. 20 21 Planning Director Darling explained that typically it was the date that the Council acted on a 22 resolution, but if there was an administrative review, it may be the date that she put something in 23 writing and sent it out. She noted that e-mail had the same weight as USPS mail. 24 25 Commissioner Huskins asked if in 11.b, ‘serve’ was implying a subpoena. 26 27 City Planner Griffiths clarified that it would not necessarily be a subpoena but they would 28 essentially inform the City with the notice of the appeal, and there would be a signed authorization 29 by the City that it was received. 30 31 Commissioner Huskins explained that he wanted to just point this out in case it needed further 32 clarification in future drafts. He referenced subdivision 10.a where it stated, ‘unless substantial 33 changes have been made which warrant reconsideration’ and questioned the use of the word 34 ‘substantial’. He explained that he would prefer it be something more clear that remediates all 35 prior concerns that were raised. 36 37 Planning Director Darling stated that was usually her determination on whether it was substantially 38 changed and explained that this was trying to prevent nuisance subsequent applications. She 39 moved the discussion onto subdivision 12, registered land surveys and explained that she 40 recommended this be put into applications because they are a separate type of application and 41 not really a procedure. She noted that for subdivision 13, amendments, she liked having this 42 section because it essentially was saying that if they were amending their preliminary plat, for 43 example, they had to follow the same procedure that they did for the first one. 44 45 Commissioner Johnson stated that was not the way she read it and had actually thought it meant 46 that the actual subdivision had to go through this review. 47 48 Planning Director Darling stated that these were actual amendments to the code and agreed that 49 they were not appropriate for the common practices as well. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 8 of 16 1 Commissioner Huskins referenced subdivision 12.c. and noted that he read this and was 2 surprised because he did not think the Planning Commission ever had anything to do with building 3 permits. 4 5 Planning Director Darling explained that the Planning Commission does because they review 6 preliminary plats and this was saying that the City cannot issue a building permit on registered 7 land surveys until they have actually been approved. 8 9 City Planner Griffiths noted that registered land surveys are a bit goofy because of the way they 10 are done. He explained that there may be situations where a registered land survey could get 11 approved and accepted for a property but the City may not be aware of it. He stated that this 12 section was basically saying that if this happens and the City has not seen it yet, there was not 13 an obligation to issue a building permit until they go through the whole process, as usual. 14 15 Planning Director Darling moved the discussion on the administrative adjustments and noted that 16 this was something new and reviewed various examples of the circumstances when this process 17 would be used. She asked if the Commission would want to notify people in order to let them 18 what was going on in the neighborhood. She stated that there could be a situation where they 19 are notified and the get upset because they cannot really do anything and stating their opposition 20 would not really impact the outcome. 21 22 Commissioner Johnson asked if this was already in City Code. 23 24 Planning Director Darling stated that it was not already in the City Code. 25 26 City Planner Griffiths noted that this is a process that exists in many other communities in the 27 Twin Cities area and explained that many times it is an alternative to judicial review for small 28 issues. 29 30 Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt this seemed like it was a bit more than a minor 31 adjustment and explained that she was not sure she could support it. 32 33 Commissioner Holker noted that it would still have to fall within the guidance for the zoning, so 34 the City cannot turn it down. 35 36 Commissioner Johnson referenced the administrative adjustment 1.c. where it talks about not 37 being in violation of this chapter, the Zoning Code or the building code and asked if it should also 38 include the Comprehensive Plan. 39 40 Planning Director Darling explained the division of a base lot and shared examples around the 41 City. 42 43 Commissioner Johnson asked if an administrative adjustment could be made without notifying the 44 other side. 45 46 Planning Director Darling clarified that one person would own it until it was subdivided. She noted 47 that there was one other type of subdivision that the City has no authority over which would be a 48 condo plat where they would not own the land and just owned a portion of the home. She 49 reiterated that this would be another type of subdivision but would not be under the City’s purview. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 9 of 16 1 Commissioner Johnson stated that the question for the Commission to consider was whether they 2 want to separate the administrative adjustments out or leave them within the minor subdivision. 3 4 There was consensus of the Commission to separate administrative adjustments from 5 minor subdivisions. 6 7 Commissioner Johnson asked for additional context on a base lot. 8 9 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of base lots and shared an example of the lots at 10 Lake Park Villas and explained that development was a unit lot/base lot subdivision. She moved 11 the discussion onto minor subdivisions and noted that her recommendation was that it not be 12 more than 2 lots and should not be on any lot that was not previously platted. 13 14 Commissioner Huskins asked about the items that referenced in the R-1D zoning district neither 15 lot may be greater than 125% of the minimum lot size for the zoning district. 16 17 Planning Director Darling stated that she has not yet found the story for why that was included in 18 the City’s current code and had planned to ask the consultants to remove this from the code. 19 20 Commissioner Johnson noted that this language was also used in the administrative adjustment 21 section. 22 23 Planning Director Darling explained that she felt the language should also be removed from that 24 section. 25 26 Commissioner Johnson asked if this was something that normally the Planning Commission 27 would have normally considered, but now it goes straight to the City Council. 28 29 Planning Director Darling explained that was what the consultant had suggested and noted that 30 they could continue to have it go before the Planning Commission. She explained that the current 31 procedure for a minor subdivision did not include notice to the neighborhood if it didn’t require a 32 variance and, in her opinion, if you have a public process, there should be some type of notice 33 given. 34 35 Commissioner Johnson clarified that her question was whether it would make more sense for it 36 to come to the Planning Commission first and make a recommendation. 37 38 Commissioner Holker stated that she keeps going back to the fact that if there are no variances, 39 whether there would ever be a reason that the Commission wouldn’t recommend approval other 40 than their own personal preference. She noted that she wonders if it should come before the 41 Planning Commission and would need to have a public hearing if there was actually nothing that 42 could be done if people didn’t like it, as long as it fit within the City guidelines. She stated that if 43 there was nothing that the City can do about it she would question why they would want to just 44 frustrate the public by coming and giving their opinion, when essentially the City would say thank 45 you, but we cannot change anything. 46 47 Chair Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Commissioner Holker. 48 49 Commissioner Huskins stated that the issue would then become if there is a variance, it would 50 have to come before the Planning Commission and would require a public hearing. He stated CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 10 of 16 1 that he felt that there would be people there who would pay no attention to the variance request 2 because they hate what is there. 3 4 Commissioner Johnson asked, if they made the determination that a public hearing would only 5 be necessary if there was a variance request, who would make sure that it complied with all the 6 City Code and everything. 7 8 Commissioner Holker stated that she assumed that would be handled by the Planning 9 Department. 10 11 Commissioner Johnson referenced subdivision 4b under minor subdivisions and stated that she 12 felt that this should just be for the Comprehensive Plan and not include mission, values, and 13 polices. 14 15 Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt it came back to whether the City Council would want 16 the Planning Commission to look at the cut-and-dried minor subdivisions even if there were no 17 variances and asked how the Commission felt about that approach. 18 19 Planning Director Darling confirmed that was a question that she would be asking the Council. 20 21 Chair Eggenberger noted that even if the Commission didn’t review it, staff would still give the 22 Council a recommendation. 23 24 There was a consensus that the Commission was comfortable with no notice 25 requirements. 26 27 Commissioner Johnson suggested that wherever there was a statement that included the 28 Comprehensive Plans mission, vision and values, that they take a look at that and explained that 29 she was not sure how ‘squishy’ that was supposed to be. 30 31 City Planner Griffiths stated that his guess was that wording was intended to encompass the 32 entire Comprehensive Plan, but noted that they could probably say the same thing using less 33 words. 34 35 Planning Director Darling moved the discussion ono preliminary plats and noted that the proposal 36 was not very different than the current process. She noted that the things that will likely change 37 would be to modernize the submittal requirements. 38 39 City Planner Griffiths explained that preliminary and final plats have the most statutory guardrails 40 in place and can be more standardized from city to city. 41 42 Planning Director Darling explained that she would like to extend how long the application 43 approval was good for and would like to change it from 6 months to 12 months. 44 45 Commissioner Huskins noted that what had caught his eye within the summary of changes was 46 under subdivision variances where it talked about removal of the need for a public notice/hearing. 47 48 Planning Director Darling stated that she would like to change that to a public meeting because 49 the published notice in the newspaper does nothing. She stated that she thinks only once or twice 50 in her 30 years of planning has she had people come and ask about legal notices. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 11 of 16 1 Commissioner Johnson referenced the preliminary plat requirements and asked if the third party 2 permissions for things such as trails that go through property had to be identified. 3 4 Planning Director Darling stated that it would not need to be identified and explained that it would 5 be a permit from another jurisdiction that the City would have to see before they could subdivide. 6 7 Commissioner Huskins asked if they could move onto park dedication and asked why there was 8 a difference in the park dedication calculation between residential and non-residential 9 developments. 10 11 Planning Director Darling explained that usually, commercial projects do bot have to pay the same 12 rate of park dedication that residential does which was in direct proportion to the lesser use 13 generated by commercial properties which is why it was changed from 8% to 5%. 14 15 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to see this amount remain at 8% for both 16 commercial and residential. 17 18 Commissioner Huskins asked if a parcel had already paid park dedication at the beginning 19 whether it would be required to pay more if they subdivided. 20 21 Planning Director Darling stated that they be required to pay more, but they would get credit for 22 the amount that they had previously paid. 23 24 Commissioner Johnson asked about subdivision 2 under park dedication regarding cash in lieu 25 of land and suggested that this be struck wherever it appeared in the document because it was 26 primarily based on the value of raw land. She stated that it talks about going into the City Park 27 Fund but there isn’t much said about the use of it once it goes into that fund and explained that 28 she objected because she felt there ought to be a dedication of land because that is a big part of 29 what makes Shorewood what it is today. 30 31 Planning Director Darling explained that Shorewood was a built-out City, according to the 32 Comprehensive Plan which meant that they do not acquire more land for parks unless it was 33 directly adjacent to an existing park or in an area of need, such as south of Galpin Lake. She 34 stated that what the City was looking for with each subdivision was the cash payment and noted 35 that most of the park dedication that the City receives is actually in the form of cash in lieu of land. 36 She explained that this cash goes into a special fund and are used for improvements to existing 37 parks or acquisition of park land. 38 39 Commissioner Johnson stated that this says that you cannot get any more existing land but she 40 felt that they could if they kept the existing percentages. 41 42 City Planner Griffiths stated that one thing to think about is when they talk about acquiring land, it 43 has to be within the boundary of the subdivision, if the City was going to take park land. He 44 clarified that meant that they could not go somewhere else and buy additional property but would 45 mean that if someone, for example, came forward with a 3-lot subdivision on one acre of land, 46 that parkland would have to be contained within the area and would essentially be a postage 47 stamp park. He explained that the park dedication money allows the City to accept the payment 48 and then spend the money in a location to buy land adjacent to an existing park rather than being 49 shoehorned into the exact site location. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 12 of 16 1 Commissioner Huskins asked who made the determination about land versus money for park 2 dedication. 3 4 Planning Director Darling explained that the requests go to the Park Commission for a 5 recommendation to the City Council, but noted that it goes back to the Comprehensive Plan and 6 what it says which is that the City would prefer to have cash over having small bits of land 7 throughout the City. 8 9 Commissioner Johnson asked if trails would be considered parks. 10 11 Planning Director Darling stated that some cities do consider trails as parks, but in Shorewood, 12 they are funded through the Street Fund, except for things like the trails in Freeman Park. 13 14 Commissioner Johnson stated that she just felt that this language did not have enough meat 15 around it. 16 17 Planning Director Darling agreed that the language in this section may still need a bit of work. 18 19 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would be interested in seeing how the percentages for 20 park dedication were handled in other cities, such as for commercial properties, and reiterated 21 that she felt the language used was a bit weak. She clarified that she did not like that the City 22 could not get land. 23 24 Chair Eggenberger asked if the Commission was ready to wrap up their discussion on this agenda 25 item. 26 27 Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission would see this document again after the 28 revisions have been made. 29 30 Planning Director Darling stated that it would come back before the Commission. 31 32 Chair Eggenberger recessed the meeting at 9:07 p.m. and reconvened at 9:11 p.m. 33 34 C. Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the R-3A and Related Amendments 35 Needed to Implement Medium Density Land Use 36 Applicant: City Initiated 37 38 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the Zoning Ordinance amendments to the R-3A 39 that were necessary in order to implement medium density land use that would allow 6-8 units 40 per acre. She outlined some of the amendments she was proposing including changing ‘elderly 41 housing’ to ‘age-restricted housing’. 42 43 Commissioner Huskins asked about the use of the term subdivision and if when he sees it he 44 should be thinking about the previous agenda item. 45 46 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct but noted that there is one section that was 47 currently located in the Zoning Ordinance that she was recommending be moved to the 48 Subdivision Ordinance which was the subdivision of twin homes and townhomes into separate 49 lots for ownership. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 13 of 16 1 Commissioner Huskins stated that he also thought it was very clear that they were cutting out 2 two-family homes from this because they cannot get the density, but in many portions of the 3 document two family homes were still included. 4 5 Planning Director Darling suggested that they go through those because in some cases there will 6 be standard conditions that apply to more than just these two zoning districts. She began the 7 overview of the proposed changes beginning with definitions and the removal of quadrominium 8 and just refer them to townhouses. 9 10 Commissioner Johnson referenced the marina property and the other properties that were 11 discussed recently, it says allows development of between 6 and 8 units per acre and asked if 12 the dredging company property, for example, would be 6 to 8 units. 13 14 Planning Director Darling clarified that the dredging company property was guided for high-density 15 development. She noted that the property they were looking at tonight was the property that has 16 the dry storage of boats for the marina and the marina itself which are separate parcels from the 17 dredging company. She noted that the parcel was a bit deceptive because the southern portion 18 of the property is all wetland. 19 20 Commissioner Johnson asked if this meant that the marina property had to have 6 to 8 residential 21 units. 22 23 Planning Director Darling stated that they can use it as a marina indefinitely, but if there was some 24 other use, without a zoning change, they could also propose to redevelop it for townhouses or 25 apartments. 26 27 Commissioner Holker stated that depending on what their overall acreage was without the 28 wetland areas, it will be more than just an overall 6 to 8 units per acre and would most likely be 29 more than that. 30 31 Planning Director Darling clarified that it would actually be less than that amount after the removal 32 of the wetlands. 33 34 Commissioner Huskins asked Planning Director Darling to review the townhouse-attached 35 definition. 36 37 Planning Director Darling reviewed examples of attached townhouses, including row homes or 38 back-to-back homes. 39 40 Commissioner Huskins noted that as stated here, a detached townhouse would not be acceptable 41 in this district. 42 43 Planning Director Darling clarified that it would not be, except through a PUD. 44 45 Commissioner Huskins explained that when he read this he understood it to be apartments or 46 townhomes, but not two-family dwellings, and reiterated that within the document he kept finding 47 references to two-family dwellings, which he found confusing. 48 49 Planning Director Darling moved the discussion onto the proposed changes in the districts. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 14 of 16 1 Commissioner Huskins referenced subdivision 4.c (1) under R-3A and asked why the required 2 side yard setbacks shall not be any greater than 30 feet. 3 4 Planning Director Darling stated that was all existing language, so she was not sure why it was 5 put in there. She noted that side yards are typically 10 or 15 feet and would rarely be more than 6 15 feet. 7 8 Commissioner Huskins stated that they have gotten used to seeing things were people are not 9 hitting what they were supposed to and essentially look the other way if someone has more of a 10 setback than the code says that they need. 11 12 Planning Director Darling stated that this caps the required setback, but noted that people can 13 still have more of a side yard setback than 30 feet, but it was not required. 14 15 Commissioner Huskins suggested that they may want to work on the wording on this item. 16 17 Planning Director Darling explained that there were very few parcels in the City that this section 18 would apply to so they could remove schools and recreational buildings in a few districts. 19 20 Commissioner Huskins clarified that he was not implying that it should be removed but just that 21 the language just be made more clear. 22 23 Commissioner Johnson stated that she wouldn’t mind the removal of subdivision 4.c. 24 25 Planning Director Darling stated that it had to be included. 26 27 Commissioner Huskins reiterated that if it was kept in, he would like it to be worded a bit more 28 clearly. 29 30 Planning Director Darling reiterated that they could remove schools and recreation buildings from 31 some of the districts because everything did not need to be allowed. 32 33 Commissioner Johnson stated that the medium density requirements are for 6 to 8 units per acre 34 and asked if it could go higher than that. 35 36 Planning Director Darling stated that it could not go higher than 6 to 8 units per acre and clarified 37 that it would be capped at 8 units per acre. 38 39 Commissioner Johnson stated that she found the lot size changes to be strange. 40 41 Planning Director Darling explained that the sizes were what would be needed in order to get to 42 6 to 8 units per acre. 43 44 Commissioner Huskins asked if there was a difference between dwelling unit and unit. 45 46 Planning Director Darling stated that there was not a difference and noted that her hope was to 47 correct these references so it would be ‘unit’ through most of the ordinance. 48 49 Commissioner Huskins referenced Subd. 7 where the word dwelling was a new word that had 50 been added. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 15 of 16 1 Planning Director Darling offered to take it out if the Commission would like. 2 3 Commissioner Huskins stated that if unit and dwelling unit were essentially the same, he would 4 think that they should all be referred to as the same thing. 5 6 Planning Director Darling explained that in this reference, she had put in dwelling unit because 7 this was a unit of housing versus a unit of paper or other product. 8 9 Commissioner Huskins stated that if both commercial and residential were included in this 10 document he felt it would make sense to use dwelling unit. 11 12 Commissioner Johnson pointed out a small typographical error in Section 3, subdivision 4.c. 13 14 Commissioner Huskins referenced Section 3, subdivision 2 a. and noted that the last words in 15 this section say ‘with the following standards and limitations’, but then it just moves on to item b. 16 17 Planning Director Darling suggested some other language that could be used since it could not 18 just directly follow that statement. 19 20 Commissioner Huskins referenced Section 3, subdivision 3.a (2) asked how many levels there 21 could be for a clubhouse and asked if this point was predicated on something. 22 23 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed that this statement was intended to minimize 24 the size of the clubhouse so it was not a party place. 25 26 City Planner Griffiths stated that the clubhouse would be limited to 2.5 stories in this zoning district. 27 28 Planning Director Darling clarified that the height limitation was listed in subdivision 6. 29 30 Commissioner Johnson stated that in the coming sections they do use two family and townhouse 31 dwellings and asked if they wanted to continue using them that way or if they should be tied to 32 the definitions that were already prepared and shared some examples of where she found these 33 within the document. 34 35 City Planner Griffiths stated that was how they were intended to be used. 36 37 Planning Director Darling stated that those are defined terms. 38 39 Commissioner Holker noted that within Section 3 there was not a subdivision 1. 40 41 City Planner Griffiths clarified that they had simply skipped to subdivision 2 because there were 42 no changes to subdivision 1. 43 44 Commissioner Huskins referenced the table related to parking lot dimensions and asked for a 45 simple explanation of the statement delineated by an asterisk. 46 47 Planning Director Darling explained that this statement had a typographical error in it which was 48 what she was trying to correct. She stated that when they were calculating the parking space 49 dimensions, they can assume that each space includes 2 feet for vehicle overhang. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 7, 2025 Page 16 of 16 1 Commissioner Huskins noted that in Section 10, subdivision 16, there was a reference to 2 ‘townhouse dwelling lots’. He gave the example of language throughout the document that says 3 something like ‘shall comply with the Minnesota State building code’ and asked if that would be 4 something that would be common for anyone reading this to know what it was and where they 5 could find it. 6 7 Planning Director Darling stated that it would be something they anyone reading this would know 8 where it could be found. 9 10 Commissioner Johnson pointed out a reference to elderly housing that still needed to be removed. 11 12 6. REPORTS 13 14 • Council Meeting Report 15 16 City Planner Griffiths noted that at the last Council meeting, they approved a code amendment 17 that did not come before the Commission related to amendments to native vegetation due to a 18 change in State law. 19 20 Planning Director Darling reviewed the agenda for the last Council meeting and gave a brief 21 overview of what was discussed. 22 23 • Draft Next Meeting Agenda 24 25 City Planning Griffiths stated that the Commission can expect their next meeting to be lengthy 26 because there are two subdivision applications, one variance, as well as the next chunk of the 27 subdivision code that was started earlier in the meeting. 28 29 7. ADJOURNMENT 30 31 Johnson moved, Huskins seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 32 January 7, 2025, at 10:20 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. 33