Loading...
04-01-25 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD MONDAY, APRIL 1, 2025 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE EGGENBERGER (March) _ _ HUSKINS () ______ HOLKER () ______ LONGO (May) absent MAGISTAD (April) _ _ COUNCIL LIAISON DIGROTTOLO (Jan-June) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON MADDY (Jul-Dec) ______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 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 A) CUP Amendment for construction of a new home and IUP for the demolition of the existing home once completed Location:27225 Smithtown Road Applicant: Alan and Jessica Brandhorst B) Rezoning Three Parcels to R-3A Location: 24560, 24590, and 24620 Smithtown Rd Applicant: City-initiated Request C) Rezoning Three Parcels to R-2A Location: 6055, 6065, and 6067 Lake Linden Dr Applicant: City-initiated Request D) Subdivision Ordinance Update City Code Amendments Location: City-Wide Applicant: City-initiated Request 5. OTHER BUSINESS A) Consider a variance to construct a detached garage structure Location: 5765 Eureka Road Applicant: Dan Wallace B) Receive Information on CUP Amendment for Additional Antenna Installation on Water Tower at 26350 Smithtown Rd C) Monthly Training Topic: Organizational Structure and the Planning & Protective Inspections Department 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, MARCH 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. and welcomed new Planning 11 Commissioners Longo and Magistad. 12 13 ROLL CALL 14 15 Present: Chair Eggenberger; Commissioners Longo, and Magistad; City Planner Griffiths; 16 and, Council Liaison DiGruttolo 17 18 Absent: Commissioners Huskins and Holker 19 20 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 21 22 Longo moved, Magistad seconded, approving the agenda for March 4, 2025, as presented. 23 Motion passed 3/0. 24 25 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 26 27  February 4, 2025 28 29 Eggenberger moved, Magistad seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting 30 Minutes of February 4, 2025, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 31 32 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR – NONE 33 34 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS – NONE 35 36 5. OTHER BUSINESS 37 38 A. Subdivision Ordinance Rewrite 39 40 City Planner Griffiths stated that this was intended as a discussion item to review the second half 41 of the updates to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. He explained the Planning Commission had 42 been working, for a number of months, on an update to a specific chapter within the City Code 43 related to subdivision and had already gone line-by-line through the first half. He noted that tonight 44 they were being asked to review the remainder of this chapter which would then move onto the 45 City’s consultant to incorporate their feedback and then brought back to the Commission to review 46 the final version and make a recommendation to the City Council. He started the review of 47 sections 1202.00 through 1202.06 and noted that most of the changes on the first few pages were 48 administrative, in nature. 49 50 Commissioner Longo asked if there was a target date for when these changes should be 51 completed. 52 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DRAFT MARCH 4, 2025 Page 2 of 6 1 City Planner Griffiths explained that the City did not have a specific target date but he anticipated 2 that it could be completed by the end of April. He noted that he had highlighted a few sections 3 throughout the document and explained that those were just references to State statute for the 4 consultant to review. 5 6 Commissioner Magistad asked about section 1202.34, ‘Minor Subdivision’ and if the definition 7 would be for two lots, but the lots could be any size. 8 9 City Planner Griffiths stated that was correct and explained that there was only a limitation on the 10 number of lots, not their sizes. 11 12 Commissioner Magistad asked about the reason for not requiring a public hearing for a minor 13 subdivision. 14 15 City Planner Griffiths explained that during the Commission’s last discussion, there was some 16 conversation related to the minor subdivision process and the review procedures. He noted that 17 the current procedure was to come to the Commission and then onto the City Council, and the 18 direction given at the last meeting was to tweak the approval process as a way to make it more 19 efficient for applicants, since these were generally pretty straight forward. 20 21 Chair Eggenberger explained that the Commission had decided that staff would be able to handle 22 that without having to get permission from the Commission. 23 24 City Planner Griffiths explained that if there were situations where there were variances, those 25 would have to come to the Commission. He moved the discussion on section 1202.10 ‘Definitions’ 26 and reviewed some of the proposed changes but noted that many of there were substantially the 27 same as they were in the current City code. He moved the discussion onto 1202.41 and explained 28 that this section was essentially the meat and potatoes of the information that the City would be 29 looking for in review of applications. He noted that sections 1202-42 and 1202.43 were also 30 essentially the same as the current version and the changes were administrative and not policy 31 driven. He referenced 1202.44 ‘Street and Alley Design’ and explained that they had added more 32 information to this section because, currently, the City did not have a lot of standard requirements, 33 and this added more information and beefed up the existing rules. He referenced 1202-45 ‘Non- 34 Motorized Connections’ and explained that he was not sure why this section had been included 35 within the City Code and the consultant had recommended that they leave it in because there was 36 most likely a reason the City had adopted it in the past, even though this was not something that 37 would typically be seen in a subdivision ordinance. He moved onto section 1202.46 ‘Easements’ 38 and noted that the City required standard easements on all lots and explained that section 39 1202.47 ‘Utilities’ was much the same. He explained that the big change within the ‘Utilities’ 40 section was from the last Commission meeting and the City Council workshop to require municipal 41 water hook-ups for all subdivisions. He noted that he had worked in other cities and found that 42 requiring municipal water hook-ups was a pretty standard requirement. He stated that in section 43 1202.48 ‘Drainage and Erosion Control’ it essentially says that if you are going to develop a lot 44 they needed to provide for erosion control, which was pretty basic stuff. He noted that the City did 45 not need to have super strict rules in this area, because this was also something that the 46 Minnehaha Watershed District handled and their rules were much more strict than the City’s. He 47 moved the discussion onto section 1202.50 ‘Improvements’ and explained that much of this he 48 would consider just common sense. 49 50 Chair Eggenberger asked if the condition of the streets changed with the size of the development. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DRAFT MARCH 4, 2025 Page 3 of 6 1 City Planner Griffiths explained that he would say that they do, because if there was a larger 2 development, such as the Country Club, the City had the opportunity to build wider roads, but 3 many happen on existing roads, which can be very tiny. 4 5 Chair Eggenberger clarified that he was thinking of a minimum and asked if there was a minimum, 6 no matter what the size of the development would be. 7 8 City Planner Griffiths stated that there was a minimum, but noted that would be located with the 9 zoning regulations. He moved the discussion onto section 1202-52 ‘Financial Guarantee’ and 10 explained that City staff will negotiate a development agreement with an applicant and the 11 guarantee would typically be a letter of credit from a bank or cash that would guarantee the City 12 that the improvements that the developers said would be built would actually get built. He noted 13 that section 1202.53 ‘Inspection’ was also pretty standard and simply stated that the City had the 14 right to inspect what would eventually be their infrastructure. He referenced section 1202.60 ‘Park 15 Dedication’ and noted that they may have veered off course from the initial scope of the update. 16 He explained that former Planning Director Darling had been interested in expanding this section 17 and as they had dug into it more, they discovered that they did not have enough information in 18 order to update this section and give it due justice. He stated that what they were presenting 19 tonight was kind of a ‘Band-aid’ that beefed up the language a bit more than the current language. 20 He explained that the Park Commission was currently working on an update to the Park Master 21 Plan and that information was really needed in order to be able to update this section and 22 explained that it would likely be brought back again after the Park Commission completed their 23 work on their Master Plan. He explained that the rest of this document was mainly administrative 24 changes and reminded the Commission that staff was looking for feedback, concerns, or if there 25 was anything the Commission felt still needed to be added. 26 27 Commissioner Magistad referenced something like water being stubbed to the property line as a 28 requirement asked if there would be exceptions that would need to be made because not 29 everyone had water stubbed to their property line. 30 31 City Planner Griffiths explained that the intent was that this would be set up so that, if water was 32 not available, it would be presumed that there would not be the ability to subdivide or develop the 33 property until it was available. He stated that on a case by case basis, the City would be able to 34 consider a variance for unique circumstances but stressed that the intent of the policy would be 35 that in most situations, subdivision would just have to wait until water was available. 36 37 Commissioner Magistad asked if it was appropriate to make that explicit within the ordinance. 38 39 City Planner Griffiths stated that there would be references in this section and noted that there 40 was also a separate section in City Code that talked about water connections which is where the 41 bulk of this information would be located. 42 43 Commissioner Magistad asked if City staff had any sort of forecast of where the subdivision 44 requests may emanate from or an estimation of where the demand signals may come from. 45 46 City Planner Griffiths explained that in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, they identified some of 47 the larger areas in the City where there would be some development potential. He noted that 48 Shorewood was pretty built out, but there were a few properties where things could happen. He 49 explained that he can provide a map of this information to the Commission and noted that those 50 areas were located along major roads and some of the larger estate lots. He noted that in the 51 next Comprehensive Plan, the City would be doing that analysis again. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DRAFT MARCH 4, 2025 Page 4 of 6 1 2 Chair Eggenberger stated that the Commission had discussed much of this before and noted that 3 he had not seen anything in what was presented that gave him any concern. 4 5 City Planner Griffiths explained that this would likely come back for a Public Hearing at their 6 meeting in April or May. 7 8 B. Nomination and Election of Officers 9 10 Chair Eggenberger noted that this was a bit unique because two of the Commissioners were 11 absent tonight and two that were new Commissioners. He stated that he was of the opinion that 12 the officers rotate positions every year and nominated Commissioner Huskins to serve as Chair 13 and Commissioner Holker to serve as Vice-Chair in 2025. 14 15 Longo moved, Magistad seconded, to Appoint Commissioner Huskins as Chair and 16 Commissioner Holker as Vice-Chair for the Planning Commission in 2025. Motion passed 17 3/0. 18 19 City Planner Griffiths noted that since Commissioners Huskins and Holker were not present, he 20 wanted to let the Commission know that they would be able to revisit this vote in the future, if 21 something came up. He explained that he would reach out to Commissioners Huskins and Holker 22 to ensure that they were on board with serving in those positions. 23 24 C. 2025 Work Program and Schedule of Meetings 25 26 City Planner Griffiths reminded the Commission that this was an annual item for the Commission 27 which gave them the opportunity to look and see what things they may be looking at in the future. 28 He clarified that no vote was required on this item and explained that it was more of an 29 acknowledgement and would be forwarded to the City Council for their next meeting. He stated 30 that he wanted to ensure the Commission knew how limited staff time was right now within the nd 31 Planning Department which was why the 2 quarter work program was pretty light. He briefly 32 highlighted some of the things included in the work program and outlined things that were going 33 to be included in the State’s legislative session and how that may effect the City and their work 34 program. He reviewed the tentative Planning Commission meeting schedule and explained that 35 he felt that they may need to talk about moving some of the meeting dates because of recent 36 changes in the Park Commission meeting schedule. 37 38 D. Liaisons for Upcoming Council Meetings 39 40 Chair Eggenberger explained that the Commission gives a report to the City Council once a month 41 to explained that had been discussed and to give details of their recommendations. 42 43 March 24, 2025 – Chair Eggenberger 44 April 28, 2025 – Commissioner Magistad 45 May 27, 2025 – Commissioner Longo 46 47 E. Monthly Training Topic: Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities 48 49 City Planner Griffiths explained that this was a new addition to the Planning Commission meeting 50 and stated that they intended to schedule in various training topics within the meetings, especially CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DRAFT MARCH 4, 2025 Page 5 of 6 1 if there was a light agenda. He gave a brief reviewing and explanation behind the roles and 2 responsibilities of the Planning Commission as their first training topic. 3 4 Commissioner Magistad asked, when a Public Hearing occurred, if the Planning Commission 5 meetings were broadcast live the way City Council meetings were. 6 7 City Planner Griffiths stated that they were not and explained that, right now, the meetings had 8 audio recordings which is what the meeting minutes were based on and clarified that the Planning 9 Commission meetings were not broadcast live. 10 11 Commissioner Magistad asked if there was any other channel for public comments on Planning 12 Commission items. 13 14 City Planner Griffiths stated that when there are Public Hearings, staff sends out notices ahead 15 of time, posted a sign on the property with details about the Public Hearing, published notice in 16 the newspaper, and also sends out mailings to nearby residents. He noted that anyone from the 17 public can submit comments, via letter or e-mail, ahead of the meeting and they would be included 18 in the official record of the meeting. 19 20 Chair Eggenberger noted that, in the past, the Commission had received some training on 21 ‘precedent’ and how there really was not a precedent and that each needed to be considered as 22 separate and unique. 23 24 City Planner Griffiths confirmed that if there was actually any precedent, staff would call it out for 25 the Commission, but noted that it would happen very rarely. 26 27 Commissioner Magistad asked if staff ever had different opinions or recommendations than the 28 Commission. 29 30 City Planner Griffiths explained that the Commission and the City Council can overturn the 31 recommendations made by staff. 32 33 Commissioner Magistad clarified that he was talking about the recommendations within City staff, 34 such as the City Engineer and the Planning Department. 35 36 City Planner Griffiths stated that, typically, staff would work that out prior to the meeting and come 37 to a consensus before it was presented to the Commission. 38 39 Chair Eggenberger noted that he had a few additional items that he felt should be discussed such 40 as Commissioners talking to applicants outside of the meetings. 41 42 City Planner Griffiths stated that the simple answer is that they should not be talking to applicants 43 outside of meetings. He noted that Shorewood was a small community so they may run into 44 applicants at the grocery store or a sporting event, but it was better that they not engage in any 45 discussion regarding the application or Commission business. 46 47 Commissioner Magistad asked what the attitude was about talking, via e-mail, between meetings 48 with the other Commissioners. 49 50 City Planner Griffiths stated that he did not want to continue to use the word ‘don’t’, but noted that 51 there was something called the open meeting law, which would most likely be a future training CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DRAFT MARCH 4, 2025 Page 6 of 6 1 topic as well. He stated that all discussion should happen in the chambers, which meant that e- 2 mail chains, phone calls, text messages, or posts on social media were all subject to the open 3 meeting law. He explained that if staff sends an e-mail, they will blind carbon copy (bcc) the 4 Commission, so nobody can accidentally hit ‘reply all’. He noted that the Commission can have 5 one-on-one conversations, such as e-mailing the Chair to let them know that they would not be 6 able to attend a meeting, but beyond that, the Commission was supposed to be silent outside of 7 the chambers. He noted that chance encounters with each other were fine, but cautioned them 8 not to discuss any Commission items outside of this room. 9 10 Council Liaison DiGruttolo noted some training that she received that essentially said to never 11 use ‘reply all’. 12 13 6. REPORTS 14 15 A. Council Meeting Report 16 17 Council Liaison DiGruttolo reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s 18 recent meetings. 19 20 B. Draft Next Meeting Agenda 21 22 City Planner Griffiths stated that he expected the next meeting to have a full agenda which 23 included the Public Hearing for the Subdivision Ordinance, rezonings related to medium density 24 development, a variance application, a CUP amendment, and an Interim Use Permit. 25 26 Chair Eggenberger commended City Planner Griffiths for doing a good job running the Planning 27 Commission meeting for the first time. 28 29 7. ADJOURNMENT 30 31 Magistad moved, Longo seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 32 4, 2025, at 8:02 P.M. Motion passed 3/0. 33 Planning Commission Meeting Item Item Title/Subject: Rezoning Three Parcels to R-2A 4C Meeting Date: April 1, 2025 Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Attachments: Location Map LOCATION: 6055, 6065, and 6067 Lake Linden Dr APPLICANT: City of Shorewood REQUEST The three parcels at 6055, 6065 and 6067 Lake Linken Dr are currently zoned R-3A. With the recent amendments to the R-3A zoning district relative to medium density housing, these three parcels no longer make sense to be included as part of the R-3A zoning district. In response, the City is proposing to rezone these three properties to R-2A. This request is not tied to any specific development proposal and is largely a housekeeping item that is being brought forward in order to allow these properties to have applicable zoning regulations instead of being in a zoning district that does not adequately reflect the current conditions on the properties. Notice of the request was mailed to all property owners within 750 feet by postcard and a sign was posted on the affected properties. Notice of the public hearing was also published in the City’s official newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject properties at least 10 days prior to the public hearing, was posted on the City’s website and at City Hall. As of the publication of this report no public comments have been received regarding this request. ANALYSIS The City is proposing to rezone the properties to R-2A. Requests for zoning map amendments are reviewed according to the following standards:  The proposed action is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the three properties as Low to Medium Density Residential at 3-6 units per acre. The R-2A zoning district is identified within the Comprehensive Plan as an appropriate zoning district for this density of housing. The proposed application of the R-2A zoning district to these properties is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  The proposed use is compatible with present and future land uses in the area. The R-2A zoning district has a majority of the same minimum lot requirements and setbacks as the R-3A zoning district previously had before it was amended to accommodate medium density housing. As a result, the impact of the proposed change on the property owners should be negligible. The table below illustrates the similarities between the two zoning districts. The existing Page 2 uses on each of the properties are permitted within the R-2A zoning district, and the surrounding neighborhood to the west is also zoned R-2A. Requirement R-3A (Pre-Amendment) R-2A Min Lot Size (Two-Family) 20,000 sqft 20,000 sqft Min Lot Size (Single Family) 30,000 sqft 30,000 sqft Lot Width (Two-Family) 90 ft 100 ft Lot Width (Single Family) 100 ft 100 ft Lot Depth 120 ft 120 ft Front Yard Setback 30 ft 35 ft Rear Yard Setback 30 ft 40 ft Side Yard Setback 15 ft 10 ft Max Building Height 35 ft 35 ft Any existing structures which no longer meet setbacks as a part of the rezoning request would become legally nonconforming or “grandfathered in”.  The proposed use would not tend to depreciate the area and would promote and enhance the general public welfare and not be detrimental to or endanger public health or safety. Property values in Shorewood are highly resilient to the impact from zoning district changes. It is not likely that redevelopment of any of the properties would depreciate the area as long as the development is consistent with the requirements of the City Code.  The proposed uses can be accommodated with existing public services and would not overburden the City’s service capacity. All three parcels have the ability to be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems, and existing local infrastructure is adequately sized to provide utilities to the properties. The adjacent road networks are adequately designed to accommodate any traffic generated by low to medium density residential uses. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Item 5C Planning Commission Meeting Item Title/Subject: Monthly Training Topic: Organizational Structure and the Planning & Protective Inspections Department Meeting Date: April 1, 2025 Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Attachments: City of Shorewood Organizational Chart Discussion 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 organizational structure of the City of Shorewood and the Planning & Protective Inspections Department. The City of Shorewood’s organizational chart is attached for reference and illustrates how the planning commission and the Planning & Protective Inspections Department fit into the overall structure of local government. As you already know, Planning & Protective Inspections Department staff serve as staff liaisons to the planning commission. But, what does the Planning and Protective Inspections Department actually do? The department administers nearly all the regulations for private property. In Shorewood that could be anything from building a new house or apartment to rules for parking and everything in between. The department consists of 3.5 staff people: Planning Director, City Planner, Building Official and a part-time Administrative Support Professional. Some day-to-day tasks of the department include: Planning: • Serves as the primary staff support for the planning commission. • Primary staff drafting and amending the Comprehensive Plan. • Monitor and update City Code as necessary, primarily concerning sections 200, 500, 1000, 1100 and 1200 of the City Code. • Review all development applications for private property and assist on applications for public property. This includes all variances, subdivisions, conditional use permits, interim use permits, rezonings, zoning amendments, building permits and zoning permits. • Prepare and administer environmental regulations pertaining to private property, including AIS program at Christmas Lake, the deer management program, and private proposals for wildlife management. • Enforce all the above regulations and permits. • Conduct special studies. • Hire and oversee consultants. • Provide information to residents, developments, builders and other levels of government. • Maintain permanent storage or required documents. Building: • Administer the building permit process, including reviewing permits, inspections, and enforcing building codes. Page 2 • Hire and oversee consultants. • Maintain database of materials. • Perform site inspections as may be required. • Provide information to developers, builders, and homeowners. • Maintain permanent storage of required documents. Rental Housing: • Administer the rental housing process. • Reviewing rental housing license applications and inspecting homes for compliance with maintenance and life, health, and safety issues. • Providing information to landlords, tenants, and the public. • Maintain storage of required documents. Code Enforcement: • Process and investigate complaints. • Prepare cases for administrative hearing officers and courts. • Provide information to the public. • Maintain storage of required documents Action Requested This information is being provided for discussion purposes only, no formal action is required.