Loading...
03-04-25 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2025 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE EGGENBERGER () _ _ HUSKINS () absent HOLKER () absent LONGO ()_ _ MAGISTAD ()_ _ COUNCIL LIAISON DIGROTTOLO (Jan-June) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON MADDY (Jul-Dec)______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  February 4, 2025 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, that is not on tonight's agenda, but related to the governance of the City of Shorewood, to the attention of the Planning Commission. In providing this limited public forum, the City of Shorewood expects respectful participation. We encourage all speakers to be courteous in their language and behavior, and to confine their remarks to those facts that are relevant to the question or matter under discussion. Anyone wishing to address the Commission should raise their hand and wait to be called on. Please make your comments from the podium and identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on this matter. The Commission may request the issue be forwarded to the City Council or to staff to prepare a report and place it on the next agenda. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. OTHER BUSINESS A) Subdivision Ordinance Re-Write B) Nomination and Election of Officers C) 2025 Work Program and Schedule of Meetings D) Liaisons for Upcoming Council Meetings E) Monthly Training Topic: Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities 6. REPORTS A) Council Meeting Report B) Draft Next Meeting Agenda 7. ADJOURNMENT 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 3 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 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; City Planner Griffiths; and Council Liaison DiGruttolo 16 17 Absent: None 18 19 Chair Eggenberger announced that agenda item 4.B., related to the Minor Subdivision And 20 Variance for property located at 5570/5580 Shorewood Lane has been withdrawn. He explained 21 that tonight, he would be turning over the running of the meeting to Vice-Chair Huskins. 22 23 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 24 25 Holker moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda for February 4, 2025, as 26 amended. 27 28 Chair Eggenberger suggested that the Commission may want to move item 5.A. earlier on the 29 agenda prior to item 4.C. 30 31 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that his opinion would be swayed on this suggestion depending on 32 whether there were people present for item 4.C and asked if anyone present was here for item 33 4.C. 34 35 There was no one present that expressed an interest in item 4.C. 36 37 Holker moved, Johnson approving the agenda for February 4, 2025, as previously 38 amended, and also to move discussion of item 5.A. prior to 4.C. 39 40 Motion passed 4/0. 41 42 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 43 44  January 7, 2025 45 46 Vice-Chair Huskins noted that earlier today he had sent some minor edits to Planning Director 47 Darling and City Planner Griffiths. 48 49 Johnson moved, Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 50 of January 7, 2025, including the edits suggested by Vice-Chair Huskins. 51 52 Motion passed 4/0. 53 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Page 2 of 9 1 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 2 3 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4 Vice-Chair Huskins explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the 5 City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners 6 are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in 7 determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to 8 hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make 9 a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. 10 11 A. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHOREWOOD MEADOWS 12 Applicant: McDonald Construction Partners 13 Location: 25480 and 25560 Smithtown Road 14 15 City Planner Griffiths outlined the request for a Preliminary Plat to subdivide a 2.33 acre parcel 16 into 3 lots for a project referred to as Shorewood Meadows. He reviewed details related to the 17 guidance within the Comprehensive Plan, lot width and area, utilities, tree preservation plans, and 18 noted that this proposal met all the City’s requirements for the City’s zoning districts as well as 19 the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that staff recommended approval subject to the conditions 20 included in the staff report. 21 22 Chair Eggenberger asked if there were any wells on the property. 23 24 City Planner Griffiths explained that there were existing wells on the property and noted that as 25 part of this application, staff was requiring that they be sealed once the properties were hooked 26 up to municipal water. 27 28 Commissioner Johnson asked about the plans for removal of ten mature trees and asked how 29 many trees were currently on the property. 30 31 City Planner Griffiths stated that he did not have the exact numbers with him, but knew that the 32 total number of trees on the property was much more than ten. 33 34 Vice-Chair Huskins asked about the statement in the report that the applicant had indicated, to 35 date, indicated that they were willing to connect to City water. He explained that when he read 36 that his thought was that the applicant could still change their mind and asked if they did change 37 their mind if it would have an impact. 38 39 City Planner Griffiths explained that the City Code currently says that when there are 3, or less, 40 lots, they were not required to hook up to City water. He stated in this case, because the service 41 was already there along Smithtown Road, staff was encouraging them to hook up, and the 42 applicant had also proposed to hook up. He noted that if the applicant did change their mind, 43 there would be no implications for the application. He explained that once the plans were 44 approved by the City Council, the applicant would be able to go back and change their mind. 45 46 Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not see this clarification within staff’s recommendation 47 and asked if it should be included. 48 49 City Planner Griffiths stated that they can include this language, but noted that it had not been 50 included because the applicant was already choosing to hook up to City water. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Page 3 of 9 1 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he would also endorse including this language so it was completely 2 clear and what would be obligated to take place. He invited the applicant to address the 3 Commission. 4 5 Lyndon Moquist, 18696 Overland Trail, Eden Prairie, and Harold Worrell, 3878 Augustine Trail, 6 Chanhassen introduced themselves. Mr. Moquist explained that they were very proud of the 7 product that they were proposing in Shorewood and noted that they were part of the team from 8 McDonald Construction Partners. He noted that he felt that their proposal would be able to hit a 9 great niche in the City related to home pricing and would most likely be around $1,500,000. He 10 stated that since they put their sign up on the property they have received about 30 calls and 11 currently had 19 people on the list who have expressed interest in the project. 12 13 Mr. Worrell stated that they were looking to put up 3 homes on lots that were around 1/3 of an 14 acre. 15 16 Commissioner Johnson about the proposed purchase pricing of around $1,500,000. 17 18 Mr. Worrell explained that the purchase price could vary, depending on what it ultimately costs 19 them to develop the property, but should be within a few hundred thousand dollars of $1,500,000. 20 21 Commissioner Holker stated that the lots they were proposing were fairly deep and were located 22 on fairly busy intersection and asked if they may be able to set the homes back a bit further. 23 24 Mr. Worrell stated that they did have a bit of play in how far the homes would be able to be 25 setback, but noted that it would be challenging because of the slope on the site which meant the 26 most likely answer to her question was ‘no’. 27 28 Chair Eggenberger asked how much fill they were planning to bring to the site. 29 30 Mr. Worrell stated that he would say it would probably be around 3,000 yards. 31 32 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if the applicants had reviewed the conditions that were recommended 33 by staff. 34 35 Mr. Worrell stated that they had reviewed the conditions and noted that all but 3 of them had 36 already been taken care of and had been discussed them with City Engineer Budde. 37 38 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if the applicant had any comments on the earlier questions and 39 discussion about hooking up to City water. 40 41 Mr. Worrell noted that he felt that the majority of the public would prefer to have City water 42 connection, so it would be worth it for them to make the investment necessary in order to have 43 them connected. 44 45 Commissioner Holker asked about the proposed buffers between the lots and the trail and who 46 actually owned the trail. 47 48 Planning Director Darling stated that the trail was owned by the Hennepin Suburban Rail Authority 49 and was leased by the Three Rivers Park District. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Page 4 of 9 1 Mr. Moquist stated that it was a bit tight there and explained that their preference would be to 2 leave every tree possible in order to have more privacy and also for future resale. 3 4 City Planner Griffiths explained that the regional trail corridor property area was 50 feet on either 5 side of the trail. 6 7 Commissioner Johnson asked about the decision to propose single-family, multi-level homes with 8 a fairly large footprint rather than single-story homes. 9 10 Mr. Moquist stated that he felt that the single-story home market was a bit saturated right now 11 and also felt this configuration of lots with large backyards and large open areas lent itself to this 12 type of family home, but noted that they do have the ability to construct single level, rambler type 13 homes as well. 14 15 Mr. Worrell clarified that they had done research on villa designs for the homes but explained that 16 the site did not lend itself well to that approach and they wanted to bring forward plans that did 17 not require a variance. 18 19 Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a sidewalk. 20 21 Mr. Worrell stated that they would not be adding a sidewalk to the site but would add curbing. 22 23 Vice-Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:27 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public 24 Hearing. There being no public comment, he closed the Public Hearing at 7:28 P.M. 25 26 Holker moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat For 27 Shorewood Meadows, for applicant, McDonald Construction Partners, located at 25480 28 and 25560 Smithtown Road, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and an 29 additional condition related to the City’s expectation that these lots would connect to City 30 water. 31 32 Motion passed 4/0. 33 34 City Planner Griffiths stated that this item would come before the City Council at their February 35 24, 2025 meeting. 36 37 B. PUBLIC HEARING – MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE 38 Applicant: Sharratt Design & Company, LLC and Matt Tierney 39 Location: 5570/5580 Shorewood Lane (withdrawn) 40 41 Vice-Chair Huskins reminded those present at the meeting that this item had been withdrawn. 42 43 Planning Director Darling explained that when an applicant withdraws an application, it means 44 that they have rescinded it, so there would be no action taken on it unless they bring a new 45 application to the City. 46 47 C. Variance for Redevelopment of a Non-Conforming Lot (formerly item 5.A.) 48 Applicant: Edward Zaret 49 Location: 20175 Manor Road 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Page 5 of 9 1 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request for a variance to redevelop a non- 2 conforming lot at 20175 Manor Road and explained that a variance was required only because 3 this was a non-conforming lot and not for any aspect of the proposed construction plans. She 4 explained that staff recommended approval subject to the conditions included in the staff report. 5 6 Vice-Chair Huskins asked how the home was able to be built before the lot was recorded. 7 8 Planning Director Darling stated that she felt it was likely that it was part of a larger parcel at some 9 point in the past and the properties were platted around it. 10 11 Vice-Chair Huskins asked the applicant to address the Commission. 12 13 Edward Zaret, 217 Hanley Road, Golden Valley, stated that he and his wife really love the area 14 and explained that he was a road cyclist and he had biked on Manor Road for many years and 15 was pleased when they were able to buy this parcel with the existing home. He explained that it 16 was not a very pretty house and felt that their plans would improve the property. He asked if he 17 conformed for the permitting requirements if he would be able to have flexibility on construction 18 of their new home. 19 20 Planning Director Darling stated that, in this case, the variance was for the lot size and not any 21 aspect of their construction. She explained that the City did tie the approval to the plans, the 22 plans that are important here is the fact that they can show the City that they can build a single- 23 family home on the lot. She noted that for single-family homes, the City did not have site plan 24 requirements, so there was a lot of flexibility on how they can design their home. 25 26 Commissioner Johnson asked if there were any requirements to hook up to City water. 27 28 Planning Director Darling stated that there were not currently any requirements related to hooking 29 up to City water. 30 31 Johnson moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the Variance Request to 32 Redevelop a Non-conforming Lot located at 20175 Manor Road subject to the conditions 33 listed in the staff report. 34 35 Motion passed 4/0. 36 37 Planning Director Darling noted that this item would come before the City Council on February 38 24, 2025. 39 40 D. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE 41 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN’S MEDIUM-DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION 42 Applicant: City-Initiated 43 Location: City-Wide 44 45 Planning Director Darling explained that this item was a City-initiated request for zoning 46 amendments in order to continue to implement the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for medium-density 47 land use designations. She noted that this would primarily affect the R-3A and L-R zoning 48 districts. She gave a brief overview of the recommended amendments and noted that she had 49 not received any questions or concerns from the public regarding the proposed amendments. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Page 6 of 9 1 Vice-Chair Huskins suggested that the Commission go through the proposed amendments page 2 by page and line by line. He referenced page 1, line 19, and asked if they should add language 3 that stated that a lot base would be a legally non-conforming lot because it would be an 4 acknowledgment of reality. 5 6 Planning Director Darling stated that she felt that they could take out the language that said ‘all 7 the lot specifications’ and noted that this was a tricky definition and shared examples using an 8 aerial photo of the base lot and unit lots. 9 10 Commissioner Johnson asked if that meant that the base lot would never be non-conforming. 11 12 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if this definition was unique and specific to medium density. 13 14 Planning Director Darling explained that it was unique and specific to townhouses. 15 16 Vice-Chair Huskins asked what a lot in the R-1A district would be called. 17 18 Planning Director Darling stated that those lots would be called a ‘lot of record’. 19 20 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he would withdraw his suggestion to amend the definition of base 21 lot and moved the discussion onto page 2. 22 23 Commissioner Johnson noted that they talk about townhouses containing eight or fewer dwelling 24 units, but when they look at townhouses detached and townhouses attached, it seemed like the 25 word townhouse was actually used incorrectly there and referenced line 16. 26 27 Planning Director Darling explained that this would be townhouses in one structure, so the 28 limitation would be that they could have up to an eight-unit structure. 29 30 Vice-Chair Huskins moved the discussion onto page 3 and referenced line 24 and asked if the 31 word ‘signing’ should be changed to ‘signage’. 32 33 Planning Director Darling explained that she had simply copied that from the existing language 34 and suggested that she change it to ‘all signs’. 35 36 Vice-Chair Huskins moved the discussion onto page 4. There being no comments, he moved the 37 discussion on page 5 and referenced line 11, and asked if they should include language that 38 specified that there was a maximum of 2.5 stories allowed. 39 40 Planning Director Darling explained that information was listed below so she did not believe it 41 needed to be added to this section. 42 43 Vice-Chair Huskins referenced line 3 and the reference to the Comprehensive Plan and asked if 44 it should be changed to say something such as, ‘as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan’ or, ‘as 45 amended in the future’. 46 47 Planning Director Darling stated that they could perhaps change it to ‘the Comprehensive Plan in 48 effect at this time’. 49 50 Commissioner Johnson suggested that it may be more clear if they say, ‘the Comprehensive Plan 51 in effect at the time of application’. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Page 7 of 9 1 Vice-Chair Huskins moved the discussion onto page 6 and referenced line 32 and asked if this 2 language was standard. 3 4 Planning Director Darling explained that this was to give a buffer between the two uses and noted 5 that this language was existing. 6 7 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that was confused about line 38. 8 9 Planning Director Darling explained that if you were putting a townhouse next to a property line, 10 they would have to keep it back as far as the height of the structure and shared examples of what 11 it would mean in different scenarios. 12 13 Commissioner Johnson stated that she agreed that line 38 was not quite clear and suggested 14 that they reword it so it was easier to understand. 15 16 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he felt line 41 was similar and needed some clarifying language in 17 order to be understood more easily. He moved the discussion onto page 7. 18 19 Commissioner Johnson stated that line 1 on page 7 should also have clarifying language to make 20 it clear that the height for accessory structures could be a maximum of 15 feet, or one story, 21 whichever was less. 22 23 Vice-Chair Huskins moved the discussion onto page 8. 24 25 Commissioner Johnson noted that the numbering was wrong on line 2. 26 27 Vice-Chair Huskins moved the discussion onto page 9, there being no comments, he moved the 28 discussion onto page 10. 29 30 Commissioner Holker referenced lines 5 and 6 and stated that she felt the wording was a bit 31 confusing. 32 33 Planning Director Darling explained that this language was trying to convey that they do not want 34 cars backing out into a public street, except for traditional homes where they have a garage. 35 36 Vice-Chair Huskins referenced line 33 and asked if that referred to existing commercial parking 37 areas. 38 39 Planning Director Darling stated that she should have taken that one out because the City cannot 40 require that and noted that it was a carry-over from the existing document. 41 42 Vice Chair Huskins moved the discussion onto page 11, there being no comment, they moved 43 onto page 12 and 13, there being no comments, the Commission moved the discussion to page 44 14. 45 46 Vice-Chair Huskins referenced line 34 on page 14 and asked if the word ‘if’ could be removed. 47 48 Planning Director Darling stated that he felt this was saying that if the caretaker was a permanent 49 resident or staying longer than 30 days, they had to notify the Zoning Administrator, which meant 50 that the word ‘if’ was actually needed. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Page 8 of 9 1 Vice-Chair Huskins moved the discussion onto page 15 and asked about line 20. 2 3 Planning Director Darling stated that line 20 was saying that they could have either attached or 4 detached units as elderly housing, but if there were multiple principle buildings, they had to be 5 reviewed as a PUD. 6 7 Commissioner Johnson stated that she agreed that the language was a bit confusing and 8 suggested that they could add the word ‘but’ to clarify it a bit more. 9 10 Planning Director Darling stated that she would take a closer look at this line item. 11 12 Vice-Chair Huskins moved the discussion onto page 16, there being no comments, He opened 13 the Public Hearing at 8:14 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing, there being no 14 public comment, he closed the Public Hearing at 8:14 PM. 15 16 Holker moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Amendments 17 To Implement The Comprehensive Plan’s Medium Density Land Use Designation, with the 18 changes, as discussed. 19 20 Motion passed 4/0. 21 22 Planning Director Darling stated that this item would go before the City Council at their February 23 24, 2025, meeting. 24 25 5. OTHER BUSINESS 26 27 E. Variance for Redevelopment of a Non-Conforming Lot 28 Applicant: Edward Zaret 29 Location: 20175 Manor Road (moved to item 4.C.) 30 31 6. REPORTS 32 33 • Council Meeting 34 35 Chair Eggenberger congratulated Council Liaison DiGruttolo on her recent election to the City 36 Council and welcomed her as the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission. 37 38 Council Liaison DiGruttolo reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s 39 recent meetings. 40 41 Planning Director Darling noted that the City Council also had a few Work Session items that she 42 felt the Planning Commission should be aware of related to the subdivision regulations and briefly 43 reviewed some of their discussion points, and direction the Council had given to staff, and 44 answered Commission questions. 45 46 • Draft Next Meeting Agenda 47 48 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he would not be able to attend the March 4, 2025, Planning 49 Commission meeting. 50 51 Commissioner Holker stated that she would also not be able to attend the March meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Page 9 of 9 1 2 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would no longer be serving on the Commission when the 3 March meeting is held. 4 5 City Planner Griffiths stated that if the Planning Commission was able to hold a meeting, the 6 agenda was pretty full already with mostly annual administrative items but also the next version 7 of the subdivision ordinance rewrites. He noted that something that will be new for the 8 Commission in 2025 was that they were also planning to have a training topic on the agenda for 9 most meetings. He noted that Chair Eggenberger had informed him earlier today that he was no 10 longer able to give the Council report at the February 24, 2025 meeting and asked if anyone else 11 was available to take his place. 12 13 Chair Eggenberger noted that he had spoken with Commissioners Huskins and Holker prior to 14 the meeting, and they explained that they would both be out of town, so City Planner Griffiths 15 would have to update the Council on their behalf. 16 17 Vice-Chair Huskins asked Planning Director Darling to give an update on the timing and selection 18 of the new Planning Commissioners. 19 20 Planning Director Darling stated that the City had received 8 applications for the 6 open seats for 21 the various Commissions. She explained that the Council would be holding interviews on 22 February 10, 2025 and noted that some of the applicants had specified which Commission they 23 were interesting on, but others were open to serving on either Commission. 24 25 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that before they adjourn, he wanted to express his gratitude to Planning 26 Director Darling and Commissioner Johnson for their service to the City. He stated that he 27 especially wanted to note Planning Director Darling’s long-time commitment to the City, her 28 expertise, and her willingness to share that expertise with the Commission. He stated that he felt 29 the Planning Commission had benefitted immensely by Planning Director Darling’s work and felt 30 he could speak for the entire Commission that they were all grateful for her. 31 32 There was a round of applause in honor of Planning Director Darling. 33 34 Planning Director Darling stated she also wanted to thank the Planning Commission and 35 explained that it had been a privilege to work for Shorewood and be able to intimately learn about 36 the community. 37 38 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that the Commission also appreciated City Planner Griffiths and noted 39 that they were looking forward to many years of them all working together in the City. He stated 40 that he felt that City Planner Griffiths had already given the Commission guidance which was very 41 helpful. He announced that he was hopeful that both Planning Director Darling and Commissioner 42 Johnson could stick around a bit following the meeting because they had a celebration cake 43 waiting for them. 44 45 Commissioner Johnson commented that she had been so impressed with the amount of 46 knowledge that Planning Director Darling had off the top of her head. 47 48 7. ADJOURNMENT 49 50 Johnson moved, Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 51 February 4, 2025, at 8:32 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. Item 5E Planning Commission Meeting Item Title/Subject: Monthly Training Topic: Planning Commission Roles & Responsibilities Meeting Date: March 4, 2025 Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, City Planner Attachments: City Code Chapter 201 Planning Commission Background At most Planning Commission meetings, City staff will provide a brief monthly training session on a topic of interest to the Commission. This month, staff will discuss the role and responsibilities of the Planning Commission. Overview The planning commission’s role is to make recommendations regarding community development and land use to the City Council, who depends on objective and equitable recommendations from the planning commission. They will consider these recommendations to support decisions that may be politically unpopular, but also far-sighted and responsible. Without sound recommendations, policy makers are more subject to political pressure. Although it is impossible for members of planning commissioners to function completely outside of the political arena, it is the role of the planning commission to make decisions based on objective findings and established policies, not political expediency. In the context of planning, findings refers to a listing of facts, evidence, and observations regarding a specific issue before the planning commission. In other words, the planning commission is supposed to look at the big picture of what is good for the community’s development and well-being. The planning commission does not base its recommendations on who speaks the loudest and most often, nor should it get caught up in the NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) mentality. The commission should consider facts and evidence and make recommendations based on its findings and ordinances. Makeup of the Planning Commission Minnesota law authorizes local governments to create planning commissions. This is usually done by ordinance. In Minnesota, planning commissions generally consists of from five to nine volunteers from the community in which the commission has jurisdiction. Most commissioners are unpaid, although some commissioners do provide a per diem. In Shorewood, the planning commission consists of five members. While Minnesota law does not set forth any minimum requirements for an individual to be appointed as a planning commissioner, there are several attributes of a successful commissioner:  A commitment to attend meetings of the commission.  A commitment to being informed about the issues before the commission.  The ability to listen to different perspectives on an issue. Page 2  A commitment to being objective and fair in evaluation of issues before the commission.  The ability to make hard decisions in the public’s interest in the face of controversy.  A commitment to public service and a respect for the ability of a good planning process to help guide the development of the community. Shorewood City Code Chapter 201 establishes the roles and responsibilities of the Shorewood Planning Commission and is attached for reference. Procedurally, it is important to note that planning commissioners serve three-year terms and that commissioners are required to attend more than half of all commission meetings within a given calendar year and not miss more than four consecutive meetings. If either of these attendance issues occur, it is considered a formal notice of resignation from the commission. Given the nature of the planning commission’s work, attendance is critically important. In addition to the commission members, the Planning Director and/or City Planner will attend commission meetings as staff liaisons to the commission. Other City staff members may also attend meetings on an as needed basis. A City Council member will also attend commission meetings as the council liaison. Roles & Responsibilities The planning commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council. While the commission does not have decision-making authority, its review and recommendations play a major part in the planning process. The planning commission is generally responsible for the following:  Assist in preparing or amending the Comprehensive Plan. This plan contains the goals, policies, standards, and maps which guide the physical, social, and economic development of a community. The planning commission assists in establishing these goals and policies by studying background data, examining development problems and opportunities, and working to create a vision of the future of the community.  Assist in preparing or reviewing official controls such as zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, site plan regulations, building codes, well ordinances, sanitary codes, gravel extraction ordinances, etc.  Review and make recommendations on development proposals, rezonings, subdivisions, conditional use permits, interim use permits, variances, etc.  Assist in the preparation of a Capital Improvement Program.  Review proposed purchase and sale of public property. There may be other special projects or topics the planning commission discusses over time, and the commission may also serve as a liaison to other commissions. Through these activities, the planning commission instills the planning perspective into the loc al government’s decisionmaking process The planning commission operates as both a legislative body and a quais-judicial one. Preparing or revising plans or ordinances are considered legislative functions, and city boards and commissions have more flexibility in decision-making. Administering an existing zoning ordinance is considered a quasi- judicial function, which carries the force of law and may be subject to court review. Therefore, cities must follow rules that provide due process and equal protection under the law. These topics will be covered in greater detail during future training sessions. Page 3 Action Requested This item is for discussion purposes only, no formal action is requested.