Loading...
Council and Planning Memo• = Item 6B City Council Meeting Item 0 Title/Subject: Consider Rezoning Three Parcels to the R-3B Zoning District Meeting Date: December 9, 2024 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Reviewed by: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator Attachments: Planning Commission memo from November 19, 2024 meeting Correspondence Received Graphics indicating the size of each parcel Draft Minutes from the Nov. 19, 2024 Planning Commission meeting Ordinance 611 Resolution for Summary Publication Background This request is part of the process of adopting and implementing the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Previously, the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan which included a few areas that allow higher density residential development (between 8 and 30 units to the acre). These areas included 1. Two areas that would allow mixed use developments (residential and commercial) including the Shopping Center at CR 41 and Highway 7 and the Waterford Commercial area along Highway 7 east of Old Market Road. 2. Three parcels, including 23400 Smithtown Road (used for a dredging company); 23425 CR 19 (Smithtown Road) (used as a storage building); and 23445 CR 19 (Smithtown Road (used as a garden center). State Statute requires the City's zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map to be consistent. As a result, the City recently amended the R-313 zoning ordinance (district) to allow development to occur consistent with the density indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. No changes to the zoning ordinance are required for the shopping centers as they are both developed with PUD's. Consequently, this action would be the final step to implement this land use designation. See attached memorandum for background. At their November 21, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted three in favor and one opposed to recommend approval of the request. The Commissioner voting against the motion indicated a lack of traffic information and no design of driveway crossing the LRT trail. The commission strongly echoed her concerns regarding traffic and safety of the trail crossing. Their discussion is summarized in the minutes. Six people requested to speak at the public hearing and three letters were received (attached). Their concerns are noted below. Summary of issues raised: At the public hearing, two property owner representatives spoke, one indicating support and one opposition. Financial gain o/ property owners: One speaker was concerned that the financial gain would go to an absentee property owner. She instead spoke of the importance of allowing duplexes and triplexes on all ments to asorb lots in Shorewood to meet the Metropolitan Council's require hoots ng ab density gI notes that the Metropolitan Council's direction was to provide units to the acre, so the high -density housing must be part of the city's future land from Traffic: Several residents spoke of their concerns with the increase in tinerate moraffraff c tt Staff notes that although the residential uses would likely g on the sites, usually residential uses have lower traffic generationthan the uses commercial owed have less traffic than if the properties were likely to redevelop district. Staff also notes that the street is designated as a min require desi traffic likely generated by this development, although any application may intersections to accommodate new uses. Safety Concerns with the Trail Crossing: Several residents and Commissioner Johns about allowing the property to redevelop with apartments as the driveway to one the LRT trail. Staff noted that the crossing would need to be reviewed in greater c that is proposed in the future that crosses the trail. Staff also notes that the drive substantially less traffic than Strawberry Lane, County Road 19, Smithtown Road, all of which cross the LRT trail as well. Change needs more discussion: one resident was concerned that there wasn't mI the issue prior to taking action. Staff responded by saying that this was a multi-y prehensive Plan (with public hearing), t city considered amendments to the Comt ordinance was amended to create a district that would allow development consi. comprehensive plan and finally, the rezoning of the properties is proposed. toted that there are few commercial I seholds. Sta! er than eight plan. apartment uses. the existing uses ;es and would likely i the C-2 zoning i to absorb the I. r moments at the were concerned the parcels crosses ail with any project y would have f water Street, and discussion about project. First the the zoning it with the Staff notes that Lack of commercial properties: A residen n e speaker is correct tlia `1 that could develop for commercial uses. ertes guided for rresidential uses can't be handful of properties, but the three prop commercial uses in the future. Impact of the change on property taxes: A resident was concerned that the propert increased taxes from the application of the new zoning district. Staff contacted the the project and they indicated that the question isn't easy to determine. The coma frate classification rate increase after rezoning as multiple than the residential base c lyp� perties can be n the property mayncrease me What are the implications if the City doesn't rezone the properties?: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the properties should be redeveloped with If the city doesn't rezone the properties, the zoning will not allowt the property owners cc im taking value from their property; any P Comprehensive Plan. The immediate dePelo cations t ment that sproposed for commerci denied any permits required by the Metropolitan Council (most likely a sewer pert sued by the Metropolitan Council for not implementing our Comprehensive Plan lesser impacts. summary of Mblic involvement: Signs were installed on the property and two ma et of all three properties. to all homeowners within 750 feNotice of the Planning in Shorewood are just a looed for owners would have assessor's office for ercial base , but the value of nre valuable. tiple family uses. :ent with the sue the city for Irposes could be ; the city could be nuired; as well as notices were sent ,mission public 01 U • • hearing was published in both official newspapers, posted in City Hall and on the website and distributed to all who request copies of this type of notice. Once adopted, the summary will be published in the official newspaper and the ordinance would become effective after the publication of the ordinance summary. Financial Considerations Outside the cost of publication of the ordinance, no other financial considerations. Action Requested Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached ordinance and resolution for summary publication. Staff provide the following draft motions: 1. Move to adopt ordinance 611 approving the rezoning of three properties from C-2 to R-3B. 2. Move to approve a resolution adopting a summary publication pursuant to MN Statute 331A.01 which would inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance without publishing the entire ordinance. Adoption of the above ordinance requires a majority of the entire City Council. Adoption of a resolution for summary publication requires a 4/Sths majority of the City Council. • 0 o�tiars�ro�oe Planling Commission Meeting Item Title/Subject: ezoning three parcels to the R-3B Zoning District Item Meeting Date: ovember 19, 2024 4B Prepared by: arie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: ccation Map Correspondence Received APPLICANT: City of S orewood BACKGROUND In the 2040 Compre nsive Plan, the City guided five parcels to the High -Density Residential land use classification (8-30 u its per acre) in order to provide potential property to redevelop with densities to create some of the 5 new high -density housing units the city is required by the state to provide. Two of the parcels are zone PUD (Planned Unit Development) and they do not need to be rezoned. Recently, the City a+pted zoning ordinance amendments that amended the R-38 zoning district to allow developments that ould be consistent with High -Density land use classification. This evening's actin would apply the newly amended R-3B zoning district to the three properties located at: 23445 Coun y Road 19 (Smithtown Road) 23425 Coun y Road 19 (Smithtown Road) 23400 Smit town Road There is no develadment proposed on any of the three parcels at this time. Notice of the appli ation was: 1) mailed to all property owners within 750 feet by postcard; and 2) a sign was posted on eacp property. Notice of the public hearing was: 1) published in the official newspaper at least 10 days prior o the public hearing and 2) sent to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject erty. prop ANALYSIS The city is propos g to rezone the properties to R-38. Requests for map amendments are reviewed according to the f Ilowing standards. Rezoning request are reviewed with the following standards: o The proposed action is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan: • • Page 2 • Staff notes that the R-3B zoning district was recently amended specifically to implement the High -Density Land Use classification. The application of the zoning district would be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. o The proposed use is compatible with present and future land uses in the area: In applying the zoning district to 23400 Smithtown Road: Staff notes that the dredging company will be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use indefinitely. However, if it redevelops for another use, that use must be a multiple -family residential use consistent with the requirements of the R-38 district. The property is located between a marina and single family homes in Excelsior. The uses in this zoning district will provide quieter buffer between the homes in Excelsior and the busy marina than the dredging company. In applying the zoning district to 23445 and 23425 County Road 19 (Smithtown Road): Staff notes that the small storage building and the garden center will be allowed to continue as a nonconforming uses indefinitely. The properties are located between an office use (in Shorewood) and a veterinary clinic (in Excelsior), with a wetland to the south. o The proposed use would not tend to depreciate the area and would promote and enhance the general public welfare/not be detrimental to or endanger public health/safety: • Property values in Shorewood are highly resilient to the impact from new development. 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 City Code. o The proposed uses can be accommodated with existing public services and would not overburden the cites service capacity: All three parcels are connected to municipal sewer and water and the mains are adequately sized to provide utilities to the properties. Regarding traffic: The C-2 zoning district allows uses that are more likely to encourage higher traffic than the uses in the R-3B zoning district. Those uses include bakeries, auto repair, fabrication businesses, and dredging companies as well as other commercial uses. Any of these uses would be more likely to generate greater traffic than apartments, especially if the apartments are age -restricted for seniors. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take any testimony, consider the request and recommend approval of the request. Location Map t North West,tog St EXOOWM __ _ _—� _ — •��- - Shwsxmd y T i ask sr• Yb� FWTM 56W G IN w EX4" Parkland 63 C11 A Marie Dariin • From: Marie Darling Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 9:58 AM To: Megan Park; Planning cc Brenda Pricco; Sandie Thone Subject: RE: Rezoning C-2 to R-38 Thank you for your comments. We'll make sure that the City Council receives a copy for this evening's meeting and the Planning Commission for their action on the rezoning on November 19, 2024. The meeting on November 19 is a public hearing and you would be welcome to provide verbal comments during the hearing. . There is no development proposed at this time. The action this evening is amendments to the City's zoning ordinance to allow developments consistent with the density directed by the Comprehensive Plan. The rezonings proposed for public hearings on November 19, 2024 are to apply the R-3B district to the three properties in the notice. I looked up your property and because you are so close to all three properties, you would receive a separate notice if development is proposed in the future. Let me know if you have any follow up questions. MARIE DARLING Planning Director • City Hall: 952.960.7900 5755 Country Club Road Direct: 952.960.7912 Shorewood, MN 55331 mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us https://www.shorewoodmn.gov/ -----Original Message ---- From: Megan Park <megan@unmappedbrewing.com> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 9:41 AM To: Planning <Planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Rezoning C-2 to R-313 Hello, My name is Megan Knapp and live at 440 West Lake St. I received the notification about the proposed rezoning of the three properties off of Smithtown Rd for high density housing. Just clarifying that this will not impactor create any thru- •traffic for my street? I am happy to support more developments to continue to grow our community, but not at the expense of others. Thank you, Megan Sent from my Phone • • • Marie Darlin • From: Marie Darling Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 4:39 PM To: DENISE HOLMGREN; Planning Subject: RE: Rezoning 3 parcels from C2 to R-38 Thanks for your email. I'll attach a copy of it to the report that goes to the Planning Commission and City Council as well as my response. The report will be available on Friday if you would like to read it. Here is a link to the spot on the website where the report will be included: hftps://shorewoodmn.gov/AgendaCenter Scroll down to planning commission and click on the correct date for the full packet including this report (11-19-24). The change in the districts is to allow the properties to develop consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Generally commercial zoning districts allow uses with more intensive traffic generation than residential. MARIE DARLING Planning Director City Hall: 952.960.7900 5755 Country Club Road Direct: 9,52*960,7912 Shorewood, MN 55331 mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us ht7tps://www.shorewoodmn.gov/ -----Original Message ----- From: DENISE HOLMGREN <holmgrendee@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 9:33 PM To: Planning <Planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Rezoning 3 parcels from C2 to R-3B I'm concerned with the traffic and amount of development on Smithtown Road (especially after the development of the golf course and all development in Tonka Bay). It's too muchl What has or is going to be done with the traffic on Smithtown? Thank you, Denise Holmgren A concerned resident on Smithtown Davis Family, LLC 805 Enterprise Dr. E. Belle Plaine, MN 56( Subject: Objection to Marie Darling, Planni Shorewood Planning 5755 Country Club R Shorewood, MN 553 Ms. Darling and Davis Family, LLC re property located at Consistent with our c September 28, 2021, deny the proposed r, Let this letter serve affecting the prope G November 19, 2024 23425 Co. Rd. 19 Shorewood, MN to R-3B Multi -Family Residential Director The proposed change opposition of the pro limit the rights of the residents on matters higher dwelling ratio Similar to the compre desires for the future it is in the best of in proposed change in Sincerely, Planning Commission, I notice from the City of Shorewood stating the City desires to rezone our i Co. Rd. 19 to R-3B Multi -Family Residential. .lion the osedland request that the Shorewood Planning dated gCommission objectt to the p pro P king of our property. e property ownees formal objection to the proposed change in land use 19 (Smithtown Road) PID 34-117-23-24-0040. icated a 23425 C.R. f the Shorewood Planning Commission and Metropolitan Council isopey. This in direct e would rty owners continued use and enjoyment of t a? arignortes the desires of -operty owner, detract business development, at affect them. Additionally, the newly en ed R-3B requirementand encumbers s imposes . further restricting the rights of the property ensive plan amendments in 2021, this proposed action ignores the constituents' evelopment of the community. st of the property owner, the City of Shorewood and its residents to oppose the d use. $I d t0d&44- Joel Peters Vice President Davis Family, LLC 805 Enterprise Dr. E. Belle Plaine, MN 56C G • • 1] Net Acres:.7 Density Range 5-21 Dwellings • Setbacks: - Front: 30 feet Rear: 30 feet Side: 15 feet Wetland estimated near the OHWL of public water t M+ ti U VA 711 Net Acres: .86 Density Range 6-25 Dwellings _ Setbacks: Front: 30 feet Rear: 30 feet Side: 15 feet Wetland estimated near the OHWL of public water L. t NJ ��.9V' r� Ik qdW Op o - R Wig• w T Net Acres: 1.64 Density Range 13-49 Dwellings g , Setbacks OHWL: 50 feet Front: 30 feet Rear: 30 Feet Side: 15 fget CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 • Page 3 of 18 2 B. PUBLIC HEARING — REZONING THREE PARCELS FROM C-2 TO R-36 3 Applicant: City of Shorewood 4 Location: 23446, 23425 and 23400 Smithtown Road (County Road 19) 5 6 Planning Director Darling explained that this request was a City initiated application to rezone 7 three parcels from C-2 zoning district to the R-3B zoning district. She noted that the Met Council 8 had completed their review of the City's updated Comprehensive Plan and as part of that update 9 there was the application of the high -density land use designation for these three properties. She 10 reminded the Commission that the high -density land use designation allows between eight and 11 thirty units per acre. She explained that the City was required to amend the zoning map and 12 apply a zoning district to the property that would allow the property owner to develop their property 13 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the Council had recently adopted 14 changes to the R-3B zoning district to allow developments that would be consistent with that high- 15 density land use classification. She reviewed the criteria and analysis that had been done by staff 16 and explained that with this rezoning, the property owners were not required to give up the current 17 uses that these properties were currently operating under and clarified that each of the uses on 18 these properties may continue indefinitely. She stated that they could also sell the property to 19 someone else who would want to use the property in the same manner and gave examples. Staff 20 recommends approval of the rezoning of these parcels. 21 22 Commissioner Gorham asked Planning Director Darling to speak to the wider audience and talk 23 about the evolution of these parcels. He noted that the Planning Commission and the City Council •24 have seen these a few times already but stated that it seemed to be the end of a long process. 25 26 Planning Director Darling stated that this would be the end of the long process to implement the 27 Comprehensive Plan for these three parcels. She noted that a few years ago there were public 28 hearings to make the change within the Comprehensive Plan and reviewed some of the meetings 29 that had taken place related to changes to the zoning ordinance that would allow development to 30 occur on the parcels that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that this 31 was essentially the last look at this item before they move onto the next group of changes to the 32 ordinance related to medium density, in order to implement the next piece of the Comprehensive 33 Plan. 34 35 Commissioner Gorham reiterated that this was not the first time the Commission had seen this 36 and noted that the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan was part of a longer process that had 37 also included public hearings. He noted that the decisions within the Comprehensive Plan were 38 driven by the Council and asked what had led the Council to these parcels. 39 40 Planning Director Darling stated that these three sites, in addition to two other existing 41 apartments, along with the two commercial strip centers in the City, were all looked at as potential 42 areas where the City could implement the direction from the Met Council to allow for the City's 43 share in the regional growth pattern. She explained that this meant that the City was expected to 44 provide at least fifty-five units and the majority of these had to be developed at a density of eight 45 units/acre or greater. She noted that these three sites were looked at for potential redevelopment 46 for small, mufti -family projects. 47 48 Commissioner Gorham asked about the size of these parcels. • 49 50 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed that, altogether, they comprised a total of about 51 4-4.5 acres of land. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD rLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 4 of 18 Commissioner Joh son asked if there would be a potential difference in tax income to the City as a result of redevel pment into an apartment building versus the current use or a different use. Planning Director Parling stated that there would always be a tax implication as properties are redeveloped. She Istated that if redevelopment occurred, there would probably be an increase in the amount of tales that the City receives because these properties currently have aging structures. She n4ted that if the properties were redeveloped as commercial properties it would be more likely that ould bring in more tax base than residential. Commissioner He businesses, as is, Planning Director commercial use. Commissioner He same commercial Planning Director with the R-313 zor Commissioner Jo that said that C-2 dredging compar She stated that sl would be a poten on and off of the information relate Planning Director development proF Commissioner Jo or if they had to jL Planning Director Commissioner Gc and asked how la Planning Director Commissioner on this parcel. Chair Eggenberc convenience stor garden center. asked if her understanding was correct that the owner could keep the could also sell it to someone who wanted to continue a commercial usage. stated that was correct, but noted that it would have to be the same asked if they sold the property and the new owner did not want to have the if that meant that their only option would be to redevelop. ling stated that the only redevelopment option would be a use consistent district. ison asked about traffic because there was a statement within the staff report ming district allows uses that are more likely to encourage traffic, and yet, the does not have as much traffic as a 26-unit apartment building would have. believed that each unit had to have two parking stalls, which meant that there I for 52 vehicles. She noted that the dredging company area has a tricky turn ain road because of the trail location. She asked if staff had considered this to potential traffic patterns is this property were redeveloped. ng stated that usually, staff did not look at site line issues until there were son asked if the Commission could put some stipulations in related to safety wait until there was redevelopment. stated that they would have to wait for redevelopment. m stated that this would not exclude the Council from requiring a traffic study the dredging site was. stated that she believed it was around 2.5 acres. stated that with that size, at a minimum, they would be looking at 26 units r gave the example of buying the garden center site but wanting to put a on it, but would also sell mulch, and asked if that would still be considered a • 11 L CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 • Page 5 of 18 1 Planning Director Darling stated that, in her opinion, that would not be considered a garden center, 2 but that could be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. 3 4 Commissioner Johnson asked who was responsible for the trail near the dredging site. 5 6 Planning Director Darling stated the trail was on property that is owned by the Hennepin County 7 Rail Authority but the trail was operated by permit from them to the Three Rivers Park District. 8 9 Commissioner Johnson asked if they had been involved at all related to what this possible traffic 10 pattern could do to the trail. 11 12 Planning Director Darling stated that her understanding was that if the applicant proposed 13 redevelopment, the Hennepin County Rail Authority would have review authority over any 14 changes. 15 16 Commissioner Gorham noted that this is a County road. 17 18 Planning Director Darling confirmed that Smithtown Road was a County roadway and noted that 19 the access into the marina and the dredging property is a shared, private driveway. 20 21 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that Commissioner Johnson's question boiled down to 22 the issue that this site has been rezoned, but it didn't make sense to add fifty cars to it. 23 •24 Planning Director Darling stated that, at this point, the decision was made for these properties, if 25 at some point in the future they would redevelop, they would need to be able to redevelop to a 26 high -density residential development that conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and the R-3B 27 zoning district. She noted that if the Commission was saying that they wanted to turn down the 28 rezoning because they do not think this was the appropriate land use, she believed that they were 29 two years behind. 30 31 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that what Commissioner Johnson was asking was how 32 they could know that this would be a safe thing to do. He asked what would happen if they get 33 further down the road, the City required a traffic study, and the information that they got from the 34 study said that this site cannot operate at this density. 35 36 Planning Director Darling explained that normally you wouldn't look at a full traffic study for a 37 permitted use, but they could have them do a site review of the intersection of the private drive 38 and look at the design for site impacts or needed turn lanes into the property. Similarly, with 39 driveways that are proposed on the properties to the south. 40 41 Commissioner Holker stated that the rezoning had already been including the Comprehensive 42 Plan two years ago and asked what the Planning Commission was doing. 43 44 Planning Director Darling explained that the Comprehensive Plan said that high -density 45 residential would be the most appropriate re -use of these properties and what the City has done 46 with the R-3B zoning district when they rewrote the district. She explained that they had created 47 a zoning district that would allow a property owner to develop in a manner consistent with the 48 Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan provides the big umbrella on how •49 properties are to develop and the zoning ordinance gives the detail on how they anticipate that 50 development to occur. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 CITY Or SHOREWOOD LANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 6 of 1S • Commissioner Joh ison explained that Planning Director Darling had said that if it was a permitted use there would n t be a traffic study and stated that she felt the Commission was being asked to approve someth ng that could cause a traffic problem. Planning Director arling stated that typically a traffic study is performed when they are adding uses that are not f reseen or for conditional uses, for example. adding a drive-thru or proposing substantial develo ment on a property that was not fully comprehended when the zoning district was applied to the property. Chair Eggenberge stated that if a developer develops the property in accordance with the zoning regulations, then E traffic study would not be needed. Commissioner Jo nson stated that they would not have the ability to get the traffic study and noted that whethef they needed it or not was another issue. Chair Eggenber r stated that they would not have the ability to get it as part of the redevelopment. Planning Directolot Darling clarified that the City would still require enough traffic information to know whether or things like turn lanes would be needed or make improvements to site lines. Commissioner Hi Iker asked if the Commission could make a recommendation that these parcels not be rezoned, f ven though it would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Planning Directoi Darling stated that the Commission was being asked to review this particular zoning district th it the City had crafted specifically for these three parcels and apply it to the property which rE juires a public hearing and an official decision by the City Council. Commissioner Iker stated that the Commission could recommend that they do not use the zoning that they ad crafted and developed for these parcels. Planning Directo I Darling confirmed that the Commission could go that route, but noted that if the City does not rez ne the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, there would be issues. She stated that for example, the property owners of these parcels could sue the City because they would be s ying that the City would now not give them the right to develop the property the city identified in I ie Comprehensive Plan. She explained that another problem would be that any redevelopment t iat would be proposed is of a commercial nature and not high -density residential, the Met Council an refuse to allow sewer extensions for those properties. She stressed that if the City does n take this action, there will be fall -out. Commissioner J hnson stated that she felt that the Commission was sharing a concern that would not be address if they approve this. Planning Directhnson Darling stated that it would not be addressed, at this time. Commissioner stated that she felt it also may not be addressed later. Commissioner orham stated that he felt the input that they would get from the public hearing will be related t traffic on Smithtown. He stated that he did not have a problem with the zoning • district itself. bu having a density between eight and thirty units per acre meant that these parcels could have an, here between thirty-six up to one -hundred thirty-five units. He asked how the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 • Page 7 of 18 1 City could make informed decisions based on how much traffic Smithtown can absorb. He asked 2 if the Commission recommended rezoning these three parcels if they could also recommend a 3 traffic study, even though they cannot authorize one. He explained that if he was approving the 4 next development on one of these parcels, he would want the big picture of how each of the 5 parcels fit together, because this will have a big effect on the City in the future. He asked what 6 drove the decision on how many units these sites could withstand. 7 8 Chair Eggenberger stated that they have had discussions in the past about the Met Council and 9 the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that they have that issue going on because the Met 10 Council has the power related to sewer lines and things like that so the City, in a way, has to 11 submit to what the Met Council wants done. He noted that Shorewood was no longer on the 12 outskirts and was becoming an inner suburb and stated that this potential development will create 13 traffic and the City would need to decide whether they want to live with that or not. 14 15 Commissioner Johnson stated that it will create traffic, but she believes that this would create a 16 safety issue with respect to the trail crossing. She asked what the minimum number of units could 17 be on the parcel near the trail. 18 19 Planning Director Darling stated that it would be about twenty units because the minimum was 20 eight units per acre. 21 22 Chair Eggenberger noted that some of this would depend on what the developer proposes. 23 •24 Commissioner Gorham stated that he believed that they would propose the maximum amount 25 and asked how the City could push back on that a bit and communicate the City's vision for these 26 sites or that they have information that tells the City that the maximum is too much. 27 28 Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public 29 Hearing. 30 31 Bob Cunningham, 22375 Murray Street, noted that he had lived in this location for thirty years so 32 he knew this site very well but explained that he was not here as a citizen but was here 33 representing the owner of one of the properties as the Senior Vice -President of development at 34 Kraus Anderson. He noted that he had heard some comments related to traffic and wanted to 35 give his perspective on that and stated that the site was 1.65 acres, so the maximum this could 36 be developed was forty-nine units, but, given the other criteria in the zoning code, such as 37 setbacks and height limitations, they will not be able to get to thirty units/acre on this site. He 38 gave the example of a situation where they would be able to have forty units on the entire site, 39 the traffic counts would be somewhere between eight and fifteen cars per hour traveling to or from 40 the site. He stated that he felt that this site was 'safety positive' because it is back a bit from 41 Smithtown Road which meant there would be room for cars to stack. He stated that regarding 42 the trail, there are trail crossings all through Shorewood and Excelsior and explained that 43 wherever they cross a street or a driveway, there is a requirement of the trail user to stop, not the 44 car. He stated that he felt the safety issues and concerns would be able to be addressed as part 45 of the development when it actually comes forward. 46 47 Commissioner Johnson asked if there was ninety feet to the trail. 48 •49 Mr. Cunningham stated that was roughly the distance, but noted that he had not anticipated that 50 there would be any concerns related to traffic this evening, so he had not done the specific 51 measurements. CITY OF SHOREWOOI PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 8 of 18 • 2 Commissioner Jo son stated that she had driven this a number of times and noted that it did not 3 see to be that lar a to her. She stated that part of the problem was also that the trail was a bit 4 elevated so you c innot see all that well, so even if they have to stop, they may not be able to 5 actually see. Sh reiterated that this situation was worrisome to her because the dredging 6 company does no have eight to ten vehicles per hour coming or going. 7 8 Mr. Cunningham greed that the trail was a bit elevated and explained that they can work with 9 staff to ensure t t the safety issues are addressed when the development proposal comes 10 forward. He claril ed that they also did not want to create a safety hazard with any development 11 that they are invo ed in. 12 13 Joel Peters Dav Family, LLC., explained that he represented the property owner at 23425 14 County Road 19 He stated that he was also here in 2021 when they had objected to the 15 Comprehensive F an amendment plan and clarified that they had never been in favor of it. He 16 stated that they ere talking about a property across the street but were also talking about a 17 blanket zoning is ue. He suggested that the City let the individual properties apply for rezoning 18 and address thei needs, as things move forward. He stated that as the property owner across 19 the street, they h e no desire for this action and continue to object to it for a multitude of reasons. 20 He reiterated thal he felt that they should be treated as individuals and the City should allow them 21 to develop as the need to and noted that they have no desire for this to happen and goes against 22 the owner's wish s. He asked what would happen when they needed to improve the existing 23 aging structure ir a significant way and what would happen to their current use. 24 •25 Planning Directo Darling stated that nothing would happen to their use. 26 27 Mr. Peters askec if that would be the case if they did something significant, for example, redoing 28 the front elevatio or adding an extension or a loading dock. 29 30 Planning Directo Darling explained that they would not be able to expand the building, but would 31 be able to make hanges if it did not change the footprint or the volume of the building. 32 33 Mr. Peters state I that he did not see how this rezoning to multi -family was consistent with the 34 adjacent propert as. He read aloud the letter that he had submitted to the City that outlined their 35 objection and as ed the Planning Commission to deny the proposed rezoning of their property. 36 37 Anna Quadi 23 i75 Smithtown Road stated that her thoughts on this matter were related to the 38 potential financi il gain because the way it was structured now was for a single development 39 company to con e in, buy the land, build it, and then sell it or collect monthly rental income from 40 it. She explaine that she would rather see Shorewood residents be able to capture that financial 41 gain and noted hat if they were to rezone homes around the City from single-family to multi- 42 family, for duple es or triplexes, they could still meet the requirements from the Met Council. She 43 stated that she elt it would be minimal and the growth would be done gradually over time and 44 additional traffi would be evenly distributed around the City rather than being very heavily 45 concentrated in ne area that is already busy. She stated that had not previously thought about 46 the trail crossin issue, but felt it would be a huge deal. She noted that with her idea, property 47 owners could st bmit for rezoning based on a lottery system because it could be a great financial 48 opportunity for I iem. She explained that she would jump on it if she could and her property was 49 already zoned f ir multi -family housing which was a selling point for her when she purchased the • 50 home. She sh red other aspects that she felt were positives for the scenario she described, 51 including the cr, ation of real affordable housing, which she felt was the Met Council's objective. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 • Page 9 of 18 1 She noted that she understood that moving ahead with the current plan would be easier in some 2 aspects because it was all ready to go, but she did not believe it was the best thing for residents 3 of the City. 5 Commissioner Gorham noted that the 2024 legislative session talked about the 'missing middle' 6 which sounded like the proposal being made by Ms. Quadi. 7 8 Ms. Quadi stated that Minneapolis had gone to this and no longer had single-family zoning 9 anymore in an effort to create affordable housing. She stated that she felt her idea would not 10 impact the neighborhood or change the feel of the City, and would be a good way to create 11 affordable housing without drastically changing the community. 12 13 Commissioner Gorham stated that he did not think it was an 'either-or' situation and this action 14 would not preclude something that what she was suggesting. 15 16 Ms. Quadi clarified that her thought was to do her proposal instead of what was being proposed 17 tonight. 18 19 Daniel Longo, 5785 Wooden Cleek Drive, stated that the purpose of the Planning Commission 20 was to look at what the City would look like in the future, so if they do not have all the answers 21 today, he felt that they did not need to commit. He stated that the traffic would be bad if there 22 were one hundred cars in that location and there would be no space to go to or for parking 23 because the water is just four feet underground. He stated that he did not think a traffic study •24 was needed because they know that everything will be backed up here and only someone who 25 does not live in this part of the City could create this kind of plan. He stated that he lives here and 26 getting in and out of the City in peak traffic times can be almost impossible. He noted that this 27 would also bring in more children which meant more bus stops along the street and putting the 28 responsibility for safety onto the users of the trail meant that this will be on children because that 29 is who will use the trail. He stated that the City does not have many commercial areas in the City 30 and asked why they would give away three of those parcels for this use. He stated that he agreed 31 with the idea raised that if the owners want this, they can apply and noted that the owner of the 32 garden center does not want this rezoning, which meant that there were two of the parcel owners 33 that do not want this plan to move forward. He reiterated that he did not feel that the Planning 34 Commission had to make a decision if they did not feel that they had all the information. 35 36 Curt Hanson, 23985 Smithtown Road, stated that he purchased this property in 1991 and noted 37 that he felt people had a concern about the traffic on the road itself. He explained that when he 38 moved in, traffic was not that bad and has definitely gotten worse and noted that he sometimes 39 has difficulty even getting out of his driveway. He stated that he felt the traffic would get worse 40 whether the City approved this high -density property or not. He explained that he had concerns 41 about the trail and stated that there had been mention of lawsuits from the Met Council or the 42 people that own the land, but he felt there should be a discussion with the people who own the 43 trail as well. He stated that he felt that the Railroad Authority and Three Rivers Park District 44 should be involved and aware of what was going on as well as the potential of building on that 45 property. He stated that it did not sound as though this type of discussion has happened yet. He 46 stated that all three of these parcels have individual property owners and felt that they should 47 have the right to do what they want with their own property and bundling them all together under 48 this plan seemed like they were being forced. He noted that he was also concerned about the •49 tax issue and explained that years ago, several access roads along Highway 7 were closed off 50 which has slowed traffic down all along Yellowstone Trail. He stated that he had attended a 51 meeting at the time where he had raised his concerns that their property values would increase CITY OFSHOREWOOD IANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 I Page 10 of 18 1 because of that du to having a quieter neighborhood, but nothing was done. He stated that he 2 felt that by rezonin this so a potential developer can come in, it would increase the property value 3 immediately whic he felt the City or County should address it by increasing the taxes to 4 accommodate the ncreased value. 5 6 Beth Rrm.,r n=&4 , 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 i 44 45 unuruse Lane stated that she agreed with some of the things that have already been shar d tonight and explained that she did not understand why it had gotten to this Point without thes vital discussions already taking place. She stated that she did not understand why there was a g and plan developed and had gotten to the 'now or never' point but they do not know about the s ety of the trail or the traffic and explained that she did not see how they could comfortably acco modate the traffic that was being discussed. There being no a itional comment, Chair Eggenberger closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Planning Director Darling noted that there were a few questions brought up during the public hearing that she uld address. She stated that she had specific information on the sizes of the properties and a plained that the dredging company property was 1.65 acres, the westerly property on the s uth side of Smithtown Road was .8 acres, and the property where the garden shop is located as 1.1 acres. She stated that she did a quick measurement of the space between the Rail Authority property and Smithtown Road right-of-way and found it was about seventy feet. Sh stated that there had been a suggestion to rezone properties throughout the City to allow two r three homes on single-family parcels in the City in order to satisfy the Met Council requirem nt, but explained that the Met Council had indicated that the City had to provide a majority of the Ifty-five units at eight units per acre or higher. She noted that allowing one or two additional h es on every single property in the City would not satisfy the Met Council requirement bec se the density was not high enough. She noted that it could be something that is looked at in th future, but reiterated that it would not satisfy the requirement in this particular instance. She st ed that there was a comment that property owners should have the right to do what they want th their property and explained that the City sets limits on the property rights of every single pro rty owner within the City, which is the City's job, and shared v She explained th t the pro given notice ab are reactionary would be allowe not been enou discussion over She stated that that took place, She reiterated tf zoning changes Plan. She note significant land mplications wo would be much 46 Commissioner 47 48 Chair Eggenbe 49 50 Commissioner 51 Perry owners of the trail have been included in the dis r ous and were examples. u t the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan amendments. She noted that they d do not usually become involved unless there is a specific question about what for trail croon ssinn gs. She noted that there this issuebwas a comment shared that there had discussio, but explained that there has been substantial he years on this site, primarily when the Comprehensive Plan was amended. sere were public hearings, public discussions, and all kinds of public meetings o she would refute the statement that there has not been enough discussion. t the action the Commission was being asked to take tonight was to implement i order to allow for development that was consistent with the Comprehensive that tax implications were typically not considered when the City was having >e discussions and explained that she did not know what the individual tax be for making this change to the zoning but stated that she did not think there cause they would be taxed based on how the property was being used. ker asked if this had been discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. stated that it was not discussed at the last meeting. stated that he felt it was about three meetings ago. • 0 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 • Page 11 of 18 Commissioner Johnson stated that the Commission had heard from one property owner who was not in favor of this rezoning and asked if the other two property owners were in favor of this change. 5 Planning Director Darling stated that one property owner was in favor of it and the other two were 6 not. 8 Commissioner Johnson stated that one of the statements Planning Director Darling had made 9 earlier was that the property owner who was in favor of this action could sue the City. 10 11 Planning Director Darling explained that if the City does not rezone the properties any of the 12 property owners could sue the City. 13 14 Commissioner Johnson asked if there may be a way to get some answers about the trail and 15 some of the potential traffic issues ahead of time before a final decision was made. 16 17 Planning Director Darling stated that a decision could be postponed, but reiterated that the 18 Hennepin County Rail Authority was reactionary. She noted that she could have a conversation 19 with them, but normally they would say that they want to see the actual plans and then they will 20 comment. 21 22 Commissioner Johnson asked if the City could communicate to them that the plans, at some point, 23 would permit eight to ten cars per hour coming out of the site. . 24 25 Planning Director Darling confirmed that she could have a conversation with them. 26 27 Chair Eggenberger asked for more information on what Commissioner Johnson's issue was with 28 relation to the trail. 29 30 Commissioner Johnson reiterated that she felt this was a tricky traffic situation in the area because 31 of the driveway location and the boats and it can be difficult to see who is there or who may be 32 on it. She stated that the existing situation is tricky enough, so she felt that adding more traffic 33 would make it even trickier. 34 35 Chair Eggenberger gave an example of putting up fencing where people would have to open up 36 a gate in order to cross and asked if that would preclude passing the rezoning because that would 37 also be tricky for people to cross. 38 39 Commissioner Johnson explained that she actually felt it was more than just tricky and would be 40 unsafe, if there is a lot of traffic there. 41 42 Commissioner Gorham stated that if the Commission was interested in recommending approval, 43 he felt that they could add to their recommendation that they had concerns about the intersection 44 of the trail and the shared driveway and also general traffic concerns with the potential number of 45 units. He stated that they can let the Council decide what they want to do with that information. 46 47 Commissioner Holker noted that she was looking at minutes from the October 1, 2024 meeting 48 and they did talk about this zoning district at that meeting. She explained that she was wondering • 49 if they had discussed it at a meeting she missed and if that may pertain to what was being 50 discussed tonight. She noted that the minutes show that the Commission had recommended 51 approval of the R-3B zoning district. CITY OF SHOREWOOD LANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 12 of 18 • 2 Commissioner Go ham stated that the difference here is that the Commission was making 3 changes to the zor Ing and not necessarily the application of the zoning to the City. 4 5 Commissioner Hol er stated that she understood that but wanted to know if there had been any 6 discussion at the C ctober meeting that may pertain to tonight's discussion that may be helpful for 7 her and Commissi ner Johnson to know about. 8 9 Chair Eggenbergi r stated that there was not, because they were just looking at what the 10 conditions would It a for the new zoning. 11 12 Commissioner Go ham stated that he agreed with Planning Director Darling that a few years ago 13 there was a lot of i iscussion about this and noted that the decision was made by the Council that 14 this was how the C omprehensive Plan would be driven which has not trickled down to the zoning. 15 He stated that the dea of letting the individual property owners apply for rezoning was interesting, 16 but that is not who the City does, because they have the Comprehensive Plan, which means they 17 look at land use o i a larger scale. He stated that, for him, this has been determined by elected 18 officials who havi made this decision with direction from the Met Council. He noted that the 19 concerns are tra and if he were to recommend approval, he would add a review of what traffic 20 impacts this may ave based on the range of units allowed prior to looking at a development. He 21 stated that he fe they may almost want to have a moratorium on development until they 22 understood the tr ffic impacts of these sites. 23 24 Chair Eggenberg r stated that, for him, this comes down to just another step in a long process • 25 that has been go g on for a long time. He stated that what the City does from here on out is 26 really driven by th Met Council, as far as density, and what was being presented tonight was the 27 best option that t e City has been able to come up with. 28 29 Commissioner Jc inson asked if there was any limit on income or affordability for the units. She 30 noted that in past inutes, either the Commission or the Council, she thought there had been that 31 kind of discussior and asked if she was correct in thinking that they applied to these parcels. 32 33 Planning Director Darling explained that it applied to the zoning district and also applied to creating 34 some affordable I iousing in the City and was why the Met Council had required that the City have 35 areas set aside t iat could develop with at least eight units per acre or greater. She explained 36 that this was spei ifically to allow for some affordable housing and noted that the R-3B district was 37 set up so they co ild develop up to a certain density at market rate, but if they wanted to go up to 38 the full thirty unit per acre, they would have to provide the difference between twenty-four and 39 thirty units per a re as affordable units to the families that would be in the sixty percent of the 40 Average Median Income (AMI) for the area. 41 42 Commissioner Iker stated that she felt that this was one step in the middle of a really long 43 process. She a lained that she could say `no' but was not sure that would actually do anything 44 because she ag aed that the City needed to find the parcels someplace. She stated that she 45 would support vy iat has been presented tonight, because it had essentially already been done 46 because it was ii icluded in the Comprehensive Plan. 47 48 Commissioner C. orham asked if anyone else would support his suggestion to include additional 49 recommenclatior s to the Council related to the traffic situation related to the trail. 50 • 51 Commissioner J hnson stated that she would support that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 • Page 13 of 18 Commissioner Holker stated that she could support that as well. 4 Planning Director Darling stated that they cannot condition a rezoning. 5 6 Commissioner Holker asked if they could condition their recommendation of the rezoning. 7 8 Commissioner Gorham asked if they could make a recommendation that the Council would 9 consider the traffic situation related to the trail. He stated that the Commission could recommend 10 approval of the request but would also recommend that the Council consider looking at traffic and 11 safety more closely at this location. 12 13 Planning Director Darling stated that they could make that recommendation with development, 14 but that would be done anyway, whenever development actually occurs. She explained that the 15 Comprehensive Plan included the traffic that was likely to be generated from these three parcels, 16 so those impacts have already been considered. She stated that if there was development 17 proposed on any of these parcels, the City would look at the impacts, at a micro -level, in these 18 areas and not the broader implications of traffic across the metro area. 19 20 Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not think it was really across the metro area and was 21 just in a pretty confined area in this location. She stated that she did not understand what Planning 22 Director Darling had said that this had already been dealt with already and asked if they had 23 looked at the number of units per acre up to thirty units and then assessed all the cars that could •24 be coming back and forth with the maximum number of units. 25 26 Planning Director Darling stated that it was looked at with the Comprehensive Plan as part of all 27 of the changes that were considered as part of the broader reach of it. She stated that she had 28 looked at how many units would be generated from each one of these uses and had looked at 29 the range of uses that were allowed. 30 31 Commissioner Gorham asked if a traffic study was performed in 2020. 32 33 Planning Director Darling clarified that it was not a specific traffic study for this one area, but the 34 traffic impacts and the changes that were needed to the entire City with the land use plan that 35 was made had all been part of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the transportation 36 section is a huge part of any Comprehensive Plan. 37 38 Commissioner Gorham asked how they evaluate traffic and if they did modeling. 39 40 Planning Director Darling explained that they look at the impacts from the likely increase of uses 41 and people in the area in a broad sense on the traffic and roadways across the entire City in 42 addition to sewer and water. 43 44 Commissioner Gorham asked about the actual last traffic study that was done that used modeling 45 and whether it was done with the country club development. 46 47 Planning Director Darling stated that there was not a full traffic study with that development but 48 there was an ad hoc traffic committee that looked at possible impacts of traffic in the wider area. •49 She noted that they had made several recommendations, some of which have been implemented. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 I Page 14 of 18 Commissioner Johhson asked if that had been done at the time the decision was made to rezone It. I Planning Director parting explained that it was done at the time the Comprehensive Plan was changed to allow velopment in the area. Commissioner Go ham asked if there had been a traffic study done for the development on Eureka and High y 7. Planning Director arling stated that there was some traffic impact looked at for that development, but noted that it w is not a full study. She stated that when the coffee shop moved in near Vine Hill Road there wi s a full traffic study which included requiring turn lanes in and out as well as improvements to nearby intersection. Commissioner G rham stated that Planning Director Darling did not seem to want the Commission to in Jude his suggestion as a recommendation but asked what harm it would do. Planning Director Farling explained that they could include it, but reiterated that they cannot add conditions into a r zoning. Commissioner Gdrham stated that he would like it to be their recommendation to the Council. Eggenberger m ed, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the Rezoning of Three Parcels From C. To R-3B by the City of Shorewood, located at 23445, 23425 and 23400 Smithtown Roa (County Road 19). Chair Eggenberg r explained that after the Commission voted on this motion, he would like to discuss making z recommendation to the Council possibly through an additional motion related to their concerns ibout traffic. The Commissio discussed the possible second motion and what recommendations the Commission ma make to the Council related to traffic and safety of the trail. Planning Directo Darling stated that a rezoning is either approved or not, and reiterated that they cannot put actua conditions on a rezoning. Commissioner G rham stated that he did not think the Commission intended to put in additional conditions, but d1d want to share with the Council that while they were recommending rezoning the parcels, they also had concerns about traffic and safety in relation to the trail crossing in that location. Chair Eggenberjer noted that Councilmember Zerby was present at tonight's meeting and he felt fairly confident t at he would be able to relay the Commission's feelings about this to the rest of the Council. Commissioner J hnson reiterated that she really had concerns about the trail and the safety of those using it in Pdclition to the importance of the involvement in the people who own the trail. Motion passed (Johnson opposed). • • • • CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2024 Page 15 of 18 1 Planning Director Darling stated that she would pass along the Commission's concerns to the 2 Council related to traffic, safety, and the trail crossing. 3 4 Commissioner Johnson noted that she was scheduled to make the presentation to the Council on 5 tonight's discussion, so she could also share their overall concerns. 6 7 Planning Director Darling stated that this would go before the City Council on December 9, 2024. 8 9 Chair Eggenberger stated that he thought he was presenting to the Council that night. 10 11 Planning Director Darling explained that Commissioner Johnson would be reporting to the Council 12 about tonight's meeting at the November 25, 2024 meeting and noted that two of their items would 13 be on the December 9, 2024, agenda. She noted that Commissioner Johnson can report on 14 everything discussed tonight when she presents at the November 25, 2024, City Council meeting 15 even if those items were not slated to be on the Council's agenda until December 9, 2024. 16 17 Commissioner Johnson noted that she did not think she would also be able to attend the 18 December 9, 2024, City Council meeting so she would plan to provide a statement for Chair 19 Eggenberger to share at that meeting. 20 FOR 3 Section 1: Sec three parcels 2 "Property") de the R-36 (mutt Section 2: That City of Shorewc CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 611 I ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1201.09 SUBD 2 OF THE )REWOOD ZONING CODE — THE SHOREWOOD ZONING MAP LOCATED AT 23400 SMITHTOWN ROAD, 23425 CR 19 AND 23445 CR 19 )1.09 Subd. 2. of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended to indicate as 23400 Smithtown Road, and 23425 and 23445 County Road 19 (the as indicated in Attachment A currently within the C-2 zoning district to )ily) zoning district. Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to revise the Zoning Map of the to include the Property in the R-313 (multiple -family) zoning district. Section 3: That t�is Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official Newspaper of th City of Shorewood. ADOPTED BY THgciTY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 9th day of December, 2024. Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, Ch Clerk • • • Attachment A: Legal Description of the Property 23400 Smithtown Road: LOT 25, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 313, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, EXCEPT THAT PART LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 24; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 25 A DISTANCE OF 24.30 FEET; THENCE DEFLECTING RIGHT 79 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 40 SECONDS A DISTANCE OF 406.48 FEET; THENCE DEFLECTING RIGHT 94 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 20 SECONDS TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 25 WHICH IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE BEING DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG LAST DESCRIBED LINE TO THE SHORE LINE OF LAKE MINNETONKA AND THERE ENDING AND THAT PART OF LOT 24 LYING WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF A STRAIGHT LINE RUNNING FROM A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 24 DISTANT 100 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1, SAID SUBDIVISION TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 24, DISTANT 75 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, SAID SUBDIVISION, ALL IN AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 313, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES OVER PART OF ABOVE LAND AS SHOWN IN DEED DOC. NO. 1052891, TORRENS PROPERTY - CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 1161512 THE ABOVE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA 23425 County Road 19: • That part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the West line of Lot 214, Auditors Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, with the North line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 436, thence East along the North line of said Tract A a distance of 287 feet to the East line of said Lot 214; thence Northerly along said East line and its extension to the Southerly right-of-way line of the West line of County Road No. 19; thence Southwesterly along said Southerly right-of-way line to the Northerly extension of the West line of said Lot 214; thence South to the point of beginning, which lies West of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the West line of Lot 214, Auditors Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, with the North line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 436, thence on an assumed bearing of East along the North line of said Tract A a distance of 156.03 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 17 degrees, 00 minutes, 13 seconds, West a distance of 267.20 feet to the Southerly right-of-way line of County Road 19 and there terminating. • 23445 County Road 1 That pan of Govern nt Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the inte ection of the West line of Lot 214, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin County, AI nnesota, with the North line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 436, thence East along (he North line of said Tract A a distance of 287 feet to the East line of said Lot 214; thence Nonherl along said East line and its extension to the Southerly right-of-way line of the West line of Cou try Road No. 19; thence Southwesterly along said Southerly right-of-way line to the Nonherly -xtension of the West line of said Lot 214; thence South to the point of beginning, which lies West oft following described line Commencing at the Hennepin County, thence on an assurr feet fo the point of I seconds, West a dis there terminating. ttersection of the West line of Lot 214, Auditor's Subdivision No. 135, innesota, with the North line of Tract A, Registered land Survey No. 436, 1 bearing of East along the North line of said Tract A a distance of 156.03 ginning of the line to be described; thence North 17 degrees, 00 minutes, 13 nce of 267.20 feet to the Southerly right-of-way line of County Road 19 and • • • CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 24-104 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY PUBLICATION FOR ORDINANCE 611 ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE, CHAPTER 1301.03 (LAND USE FEES) WHEREAS, at a duly called meeting on December 9, 2024, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. 611 entitled "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1201.09 SUBD 2 OF THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE — THE SHOREWOOD ZONING MAP FOR 3 PARCELS LOCATED AT 23400 SMITHTOWN ROAD, 23425 CR 19 AND 23445 CR 19; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 611 rezones three parcels from the C-2 zoning district to the R-38 zoning district within the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the zoning map amendment is proposed to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan for areas indicated for development to High Density residential uses. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 611 is lengthy; and WHEREAS, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subd. 4, the City Council has . determined that publication of the title and summary of the ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: 1. The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. 611 clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish Ordinance No. 611 by title and summary, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, Subdivision 4. A full copy of the Ordinance is available at Shorewood City Hall during regular office hours and on the city's website. ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 91" day of December, 2024. Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: 0 Sandie Thone, City Clerk 0 • 0 0 KRAUS-ANDERSON, December 6, 2024 Marie Darling Planning Director City of Shorewood Shorewood City Hall 5755 County Club Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 via e-mail Re: Rezoning Parcels from C-2 to R-313 Resolution 24-104 Dear Ms. Darling: Kraus -Anderson Development Company 501 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55404 I am writing as Kraus -Anderson Development Company is acting as an advisor to one of the properties that will be affected by the proposed rezoning referenced above, specifically 23400 Smithtown Road (PID 34-11-72-3210-032). Although Property Ownership has not requested or initiated the proposed change in zoning, Property Ownership supports the City -Initiated request for the rezoning. Mention was made at the Planning Commission regarding safety of pedestrians utilizing the trail that bisects the current property access from Smithtown Road. The Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail (Hopkins to Victoria) bisects numerous streets and driveways in a manner very similar to this condition. When the site is redeveloped, measures similar to those found throughout the trail to assure public safety will be incorporated into the project design. Property Ownership will not be present at the City Council meeting on Monday, December 9, due to travel. However, I will be present and available to answer questions. Thank you for your consideration. (Very trpV yours, 1 lu Robert H. Cunningham Senior Vice President Kraus -Anderson Development Company C: Gabriel Jabbour Gigi Jabbour Peter Johnson,Esq.