Loading...
06-03-25 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2025 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE EGGENBERGER () _ _ HUSKINS () ______ LONGO ()_ _ MAGISTAD ()_ _ HOLKER (June) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON DIGROTTOLO (Jan-June) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON MADDY (Jul-Dec)______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  May 6, 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) Tingewood HOA Common Area PUD Concept Location: Parcel ID 3511723110072 Applicant: Tingewood Homeowner’s Association B) Impervious Surface Definition City Code Amendments Location: City Wide Applicant: City of Shorewood 5. OTHER BUSINESS A) Monthly Training Topic – Due Process & Public Hearings 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, MAY 6, 2025 7:00 P.M. 4 5 DRAFT MINUTES 6 7 8 CALL TO ORDER 9 10 Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 11 12 ROLL CALL 13 14 Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Eggenberger, Holker, Longo, and Magistad; and 15 Planning Director Griffiths 16 17 Absent: None 18 19 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20 21 Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Longo seconded, approving the agenda for 22 May 6, 2025, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 23 24 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25 26  April 1, 2025 27 28 Chair Huskins explained that he had submitted minor edits and typographical errors to Planning 29 Director Griffiths before the meeting. 30 31 Commissioner Eggenberger moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, approving the 32 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 1, 2025, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 33 34 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 35 36 George Greenfield, 24715 Old Yellowstone Trail, asked Chair Huskins if he felt it was his 37 obligation to respond to questions from citizens, especially in light of last month’s meeting when 38 there was confusion among the Commission related to a distinction the Planning Director had 39 made about one portion of the ordinance being relevant to the Commission and the other was 40 not. He stated that neither the Commission nor the audience truly understood and explained 41 that he had emailed Chair Huskins to try to clear things up, but he had not heard back from him. 42 43 Chair Huskins stated that he had not received an email from Mr. Greenfield. 44 45 Mr. Greenfield stated that he felt this matter still needed to be cleared up and that Planning 46 Director Griffiths tried to force a conclusion on the Commission. He noted that he felt the entire 47 meeting seemed a bit shady because it felt like something was being forced on the Commission. 48 He stated that he would submit another email to Chair Huskins to try to get some answers. 49 50 Commissioner Eggenberger explained that usually the Commission did not respond to emails 51 from citizens because one Commissioner cannot conduct City business on their own. He stated 52 that City business has to be done in partnership with the other Commissioners and must be done 53 in a public forum, and noted that they usually refer anything they get to staff. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 2 of 16 1 2 Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the Commission can respond to individual questions, but 3 agreed that typically the proper channel would be to refer them to staff, and staff can put together 4 a response on behalf of the Commission. 5 6 Chair Huskins agreed that would be what he would typically do when he received an email. 7 8 Mr. Greenfield referenced Commissioner Eggenberger’s comments and asked when citizens 9 could have conversations with members of the Planning Commission. 10 11 Commissioner Eggenberger clarified that those conversations could take place through staff 12 members. 13 14 Mr. Greenfield stated that the Planning Commission and staff were two different entities. 15 16 Chair Huskins explained that their standard procedure was to receive input from any citizen, listen, 17 ask questions to ensure they understand the issue, and then take that to Planning Director 18 Griffiths who would help the Commission understand if it was a matter that should be placed on 19 an agenda for the entire Commission or to force it up to the City Council for their actions. He 20 reiterated that individually, the Commission members do not act by themselves, but act as a body, 21 in public meetings. 22 23 Mr. Greenfield stated that he would send an email and ask Planning Director Griffiths to respond 24 to his question on why the Commission was not apprised of the distinction he had made at the 25 last meeting regarding one section of the amended statute being relevant to their view and the 26 other not being relevant to them. He stated that despite that distinction, he had asked the 27 Commission to vote on the entire thing, even though he had told them the entire thing was not 28 under their jurisdiction, which he found very confusing. 29 30 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 31 Chair Huskins explained that the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the 32 City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners 33 are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in 34 determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to 35 hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make 36 a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. 37 38 A. PUBLIC HEARING – VACATION OF EASEMENT 39 Applicant: Heidi and Craig Johnson 40 Location: 27940 Smithtown Road 41 42 Planning Director Griffiths reviewed the request from Heidi and Craig Johnson at 27940 43 Smithtown Road for vacation of an easement. He explained that they were trying to clean up the 44 title work on the survey of the property and stated that staff recommended approval of their 45 request. 46 47 Chair Huskins asked if the extension of the Johnson Hollow easement was still in force and, if so, 48 why. 49 50 Planning Director Griffiths stated that vacation of easements can only be requested by an 51 individual property owner or by a City Council resolution, which meant that they were only CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 3 of 16 1 considering vacation of the easement for this particular property. He noted that he has had 2 conversations with adjacent property owners to let them know that this was a process they could 3 also pursue and that the City would be supportive of their efforts. 4 5 Commissioner Magistad asked if there was potential for these properties to be subdivided in the 6 future, and having implications for new easements. 7 8 Planning Director Griffiths stated that at this point, he would say ‘no’ because the Zoning 9 Ordinance would not allow for further subdivision of the properties, because there were also 10 protections for Lake Minnetonka. He explained that the applicant was interested in vacation of 11 this easement because they wanted to remodel their property. 12 13 Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M., there being no public comment, he closed 14 the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M. 15 16 Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, recommending approval 17 of the Vacation of Easement for Heidi and Craig Johnson at 27940 Smithtown Road, as 18 presented. Motion passed 5/0. 19 20 Planning Director Griffiths noted that this item would go before the City Council on May 12, 2025. 21 22 B. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT 23 Applicant: Richard and Jennifer Pearce 24 Location: 5905 Grant Street 25 26 Planning Director Griffiths reviewed the request for a CUP for an increased fence height at 5905 27 Grant Street and explained that the fence had already been built. He noted that on their north 28 boundary, they had constructed an 8.5-foot fence on the last portion because of the existing 29 retaining wall. He explained that the applicant had gone through the permit process with the City 30 for the fencing and stated that staff had approved the permit most likely based on the angle of the 31 fence on the other side of the retaining wall that still looked like it was a 6 foot tall fence, and was 32 why the applicant was here requesting this deviation. He stated that staff recommended approval 33 of the request based on the unique appearance of the fence and the applicant’s willingness to 34 provide the structural certification. He stated that they had received public comments on this item, 35 and a majority were in favor of this request. He noted that they had also received a few phone 36 calls from people who had some questions, and one who wanted to anonymously indicate that 37 they were opposed. 38 39 Commissioner Holker asked if the applicants were located on the right-hand side of the picture 40 and asked if there was anything that required the horizontal planks to go down to the ground. 41 42 Planning Director Griffiths stated that there was no requirement for that and explained that the 43 City Code would most likely prefer the existing design. 44 45 Commissioner Holker stated that one of the comments submitted was about the neighbor’s fence 46 being lower than this fence, so this fence would be seen above the neighbor's, and asked if there 47 were any pictures of that situation. 48 49 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he did not have any photos of that situation, but did not 50 believe it was the immediately adjacent property. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 4 of 16 1 Chair Huskins asked where the retaining wall was located on the north side of the property. 2 3 Planning Director Griffiths displayed a photo and pointed out the location of the retaining wall and 4 explained that the fencing runs the length of the property line. 5 6 Chair Huskins asked if the photograph had been taken from the backyard. 7 8 Planning Director Griffiths explained that the photo was taken from the street. 9 10 Chair Huskins asked if the 8.5-foot portion of the fencing was on the driveway portion of the 11 property. 12 13 Planning Director Griffiths confirmed that it was essentially located on the driveway portion of the 14 property. He indicated the photograph and explained that it was just the first panel of fencing, 15 where it was up on the posts, before the remaining part of the fence just followed the grade. 16 17 Commissioner Magistad asked about the structure certification and whether it had included the 18 integrity of the retaining wall. 19 20 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the fence was not attached to the retaining wall and was a 21 completely self-standing structure, with footings under the posts. 22 23 Commissioner Magistad asked if repairs had to be made to the retaining wall, and whether the 24 fence would have to be deconstructed. 25 26 Planning Director Griffiths noted that he felt that they would be able to make those improvements 27 from the other side and would be room to access the top of the retaining wall underneath the 28 fence. 29 30 Commissioner Eggenberger shared some hypothetical situations and asked questions on how 31 they would be handled. 32 33 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the hypothetical situations outlined by Commissioner 34 Eggenberger would be handled in the same manner as the current application. 35 36 Commissioner Longo asked if the City allowed this, what would be the limit. 37 38 Planning Director Griffiths explained that typically, 6 feet would be the maximum, and any 39 deviation would come before the Commission and the City Council for authorization. 40 41 Commissioner Longo stated that in this case, it was built before they got this authorization, which 42 meant that he could build something and then, at some point, come for authorization, and 43 reiterated his question about what the limit would be. 44 45 Planning Director Griffiths reiterated that the Council and Commission set the limit through their 46 review of the requests. He stated that precedent was not that important from request to request, 47 because there were always different factors involved, and noted that he believed it had been 48 many years since the City had reviewed this type of request. 49 50 Commissioner Eggenberger noted that he did not believe he had ever seen a request like this 51 and stated that he did not believe this would have ever come before the Commission if they had CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 5 of 16 1 only constructed the fence at 6 feet in height. He stated that the retaining wall would be any 2 height as long as this was 6 feet above the retaining wall, they could go up as far as they want. 3 4 Planning Director Griffiths stated that was not accurate and explained that he was saying that the 5 way the City Code was set up was that if a fence was built on top of a retaining wall, the combined 6 height between the retaining wall and the fence was capped at 6 feet. He stated that anything 7 over that height would have to come before the Commission through this permitting process. 8 9 Commissioner Magistad noted that they would not build a retaining wall unless it was retaining 10 something. 11 12 Commissioner Holker asked if the request had been approved by the staff originally. 13 14 Planning Director Griffiths explained that this had happened before he was with the City and 15 stated that his understanding was that former Planning Director Darling issued a zoning permit 16 for this project based on the design, looking from the view on the other side. 17 18 Chair Huskins asked for clarification on the location of the 8.5-foot fencing. 19 20 Planning Director Griffiths pointed out the location of the 8.5-foot fencing in the photo that was 21 being displayed. 22 23 Chair Huskins referenced the email received by the City that said they would see a portion of this 24 fence higher than the fence that they had on their property, and stated that he would like to be 25 clear where that was located. 26 27 Commissioner Holker noted that the email referred to their backyard. 28 29 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the applicant may be able to shed some light on that issue. 30 31 Richard Pearce, 5905 Grant Street, stated that the email they were just talking about was referring 32 to the house that is located to the east and pointed out on the screen what she was talking about. 33 He stated that their fence was not being built there and was already in place and is before he 34 started fencing. He explained that he believed she was thinking that he proposed to build another 35 fence that was 8 feet tall and was not referring to the fence that was already there. He explained 36 that they had applied for this fencing through the City, and it had been approved and built. He 37 stated that the fence was built in good faith, and there was just a misunderstanding about the 38 height in the location near the retaining wall. He stated that it was not a situation where they had 39 built something with the idea of trying to get away with something, and they had submitted for all 40 the necessary permits and felt that they had intended to follow the letter of the law in everything 41 that they had done on the property. He explained that this was a fence that was 6 feet tall from 42 their backyard and steps down from the backyard to the front yard, and matches the rest of their 43 fencing. He noted that the posts shown in the photos were the only thing that added the extra 44 height. He explained that this fence was a significant improvement over the fence that was there 45 previously and noted that it was also higher than what they had just built. He explained that the 46 previous fence had a lattice at the top as well as a structure at the end of the driveway, which was 47 taller than 10 feet. He stated that they believe that the fence they have constructed was 48 aesthetically pleasing and noted that there were neighbors present and many had also written to 49 the City in support of their request. He noted that this was a necessary privacy fence that was 50 desired by them, but also by their neighbors to the north. He stated that the neighbors to the 51 north had also applied for a fence, but were denied because it did not meet the City’s CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 6 of 16 1 requirements, and reiterated that their fencing had been approved by the City. He explained that 2 the fence had helped to reduce the number of unpleasant interactions with their neighbors, which 3 seemed to stem from the construction of their home. He stated that they have two small children 4 and explained that, in the past, they had been subjected to things by the neighbors to the north, 5 and this fence was helping them just be able to live their lives and be left alone. He stated that 6 he felt the fence brought the opportunity for peace, separation, and hopefully also civility. He 7 explained that their request had a lot of support from the community. He explained that the 8 neighbor’s sewer line ran through their property and had to be cut when they built their home, and 9 the neighbors had been upset with them ever since they built their home 2.5 years ago. 10 11 Commissioner Eggenberger asked what it would mean to Mr. Pearce if the fence were only 6 feet 12 tall in this location and not 8.5 feet. 13 14 Mr. Pearce stated that if the panels were lowered to 6 feet, that would mean that from their 15 backyard, they would have a 4-foot-tall fence, which would not be a privacy fence. He noted that 16 the area to the left is a sunken driveway, which is why it looks like it does. He reiterated that the 17 previous fence matched that elevation and was higher than what they had installed. 18 19 Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. 20 21 Derek Allmendinger, 5915 Grant Street, stated that they have lived next to the Pearces for ten 22 years, and the families have been close. He stated that the effort the Pearces have put into their 23 property over the last ten years has elevated their property, but also everyone else’s in the area, 24 which was greatly appreciated by their direct neighbors. He stated that the fence is structurally 25 sound, safe, and provides privacy, and noted that the only person who has expressed opposition 26 was about its aesthetics. He suggested that the Commission drive by and look at it because he 27 felt it was very visually appealing, and asked the Commission to recommend approval of this 28 request. 29 30 Kevin Kensel, 23255 Park Street, stated that he felt this fence had plenty of setback from the 31 street and did not provide any visibility issues, and asked the Commission to recommend approval 32 of the request. 33 34 Julie Williams, 771 Grant Street, Excelsior, stated that she was also here in support of this request 35 and asked the Commission to recommend approval of their fencing, which she felt was beautiful. 36 37 Brenda Boime, 826 Pleasant Street, Excelsior, stated that they live behind the Pearce residence 38 and stated that they felt they had done a wonderful job building a beautiful home and fence. She 39 stated that she also encouraged the Commission to recommend approval of their request. She 40 noted that they felt the Pearces had done a great job and had elevated the property values for 41 everyone in the area. 42 43 David Hoo, 23260 Park Street, stated that he also hoped that the Commission would recommend 44 approval of this request for the fence, as is. He stated that he felt it was a nice addition to the 45 neighborhood and agreed that the Pearces had done a beautiful job on their house and fence, 46 and their work had considerably improved the property. 47 48 Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M. 49 50 Commissioner Holker stated that she had not seen a letter from the property to the north. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 7 of 16 1 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the City had not received any comments from the property 2 to the north. 3 4 Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he hated fences, so when he sees a variance or a CUP 5 request for a fence that goes beyond the City Code, alarms go off in his head, but explained that 6 he realized there was a need for fencing in some cases. He stated that he intended to vote in 7 favor of this request. 8 9 Commissioner Magistad moved, Commissioner Holker seconded, recommending 10 approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Increased Fence Height for Richard and Jennifer 11 Pearce located at 5905 Grant Street. Motion passed 5/0. 12 13 Planning Director Griffiths stated that this would come before the City Council on May 12, 2025. 14 15 C. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED 16 UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 17 Applicant: Mark Kaltsas 18 Location: Shorewood Carriage Homes, 24560 Smithtown Road 19 20 Planning Director Griffiths gave a brief overview of the request for a Preliminary Plat and 21 Development Stage PUD for Shorewood Carriage Homes at 24560 Smithtown Road. He noted 22 that this property was recently rezoned to match the Comprehensive Plan guidance for medium 23 density for development of 6 to 8 units/acre, and they were proposing a relatively straightforward 24 6-lot development. He explained that staff recommended approval subject to the conditions 25 included in the staff report. 26 27 Commissioner Eggenberger asked about the guest parking spaces and asked if they would have 28 signs that indicated it was for use by cars only and not RVs or trailers. 29 30 Planning Director Griffiths explained that, as part of the HOA documents and the previous City 31 Council approval, there was a general restriction that those types of items were supposed to be 32 stored on the exterior of the HOA-owned property. 33 34 Commissioner Magistad asked about the timeline for the development. 35 36 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the applicant would like to begin construction in 2025, if the 37 City approved. 38 39 Commissioner Longo stated that there are a lot of Native American burial grounds in the area and 40 asked if there was that kind of finding, if the City would end up being liable for taking care of it. 41 42 Planning Director Griffiths stated that burial grounds are a bit tricky because their location is 43 protected as confidential data by State law. He stated that the City’s engineering firm has access 44 to some of that information and noted that they did not have any concerns with this location. 45 46 Commissioner Longo noted that two of the units will need some specific force mains for the sewer 47 and asked if there were issues with them if the City would be responsible for any damage to the 48 units. 49 50 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the City would not be responsible because those would be 51 private improvements for the homeowners. He explained that several homes in the City have CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 8 of 16 1 private force mains, and it is not uncommon. He stated that the City ensured that its infrastructure 2 was a gravity main and was comfortable with this proposal. 3 4 Chair Huskins asked about the fence and why it was in the staff report. 5 6 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he was not with the City at the time, but his understanding 7 from the record was that the adjacent fence on the south side of the site was falling over and in a 8 state of decay. He stated that the fence is located on the property line, and with this application, 9 there is the opportunity for the developer to provide some additional screening for the residents 10 of the apartment. He noted that the language used in the section was ‘consider’ because the City 11 cannot require this level of off-site improvements, and explained that the applicant had indicated 12 that they were trying to work in good faith with that property owner to figure out the fence situation. 13 14 Chair Huskins asked where the sidewalk would end in the development. 15 16 Planning Director Griffiths explained that the location where the sidewalk would end and noted 17 that there was a full trail on the south side of Smithtown. He stated that the developer was 18 proposing some small sidewalk improvements so the residents can get back up to the intersection 19 to make a safe crossing to access the rest of the trail system. 20 21 Chair Huskins asked if there may be an opportunity, for safety reasons and access to the country 22 club development and the trails, for some signage or a painted pathway to provide a crossing 23 over Smithtown Road from the development to the other side. 24 25 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the issue here was the proximity to the intersection with 26 County Road 19 and stated that having a crosswalk in this location would not be safe for residents 27 because of how close the intersection was. He explained that the safest option for pedestrians 28 would be to go to the intersection and cross at that point. 29 30 Chair Huskins asked about the landscaping to the west near the single-family home. 31 32 Planning Director Griffiths displayed the proposed landscape plan and stated that they were 33 proposing a six-foot-tall ornamental fence that would run the length of the property line. He noted 34 that the big circles shown on the plan indicated trees that would be planted to help with screening 35 from things like headlights shining on the adjacent property. He stated that they were also 36 planning a line of shrubs on the inside of the fence for the length of the property. He noted that 37 the City had received a comment from that property owner, Paul Hirsch, 24590 Smithtown Road, 38 who indicated that he would prefer it be a privacy fence rather than an ornamental fence. 39 40 Chair Huskins asked how much of the 10-foot setback area would be consumed by the 41 landscaping and how much usable backyard the units would have. 42 43 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the backyards of these properties would be covered by a 44 drainage and utility easement, so they would not be able to build structures in their yards. He 45 noted that the Commission could think of this project almost like a detached townhome, and things 46 like sheds would be controlled by the HOA covenant. He stated that there will be a few feet where 47 residents could have something like a grill, but essentially, the whole backyard area would 48 predominantly be landscaping. 49 50 Chair Huskins asked about the entrance related to signage and lighting. 51 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 9 of 16 1 Planning Director Griffiths explained that the entrance would be on Smithtown Road as a private 2 driveway access and would not be any other improvements associated with it. He stated that he 3 believed the applicant may place a monument sign at the entrance. 4 5 Chair Huskins asked if the private road would be wide enough to support traffic in both directions 6 at the same time. 7 8 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the road was about 26 feet wide, so two cars could fit side 9 by side and squeak by each other. He reminded the Commission that there were only 6 homes 10 in the development, and staff were not concerned about residents running into each other all the 11 time. 12 13 Chair Huskins explained that he was more concerned about the entrance with vehicles exiting or 14 entering when there was substantial traffic on Smithtown Road. 15 16 Planning Director Griffiths stated that there could be cars entering and exiting at the same time 17 and displayed a diagram that showed the amount of room available and stated that he felt there 18 was enough room for the cars to negotiate with each other for entrances and exits with the traffic 19 driving by. 20 21 Chair Huskins asked if a homeowner would be able to leave the property if there was an 22 emergency vehicle on the property. 23 24 Planning Director Griffiths admitted that it would be a bit trickier and displayed the current 25 rendering that showed the emergency vehicle turning movements, and stated that with an 26 emergency vehicle on site, it would get a bit more difficult. He noted that the intent would be that 27 it be signed as ‘no parking’, so he felt the emergency vehicles would be able to negotiate that like 28 they would any other driveway or street in the City. He noted that the Excelsior Fire District had 29 reviewed this concept and was generally supportive of it. 30 31 Commissioner Magistad stated that the potential zoning reform appeared to be stalled at the State 32 level and asked if the City were proactive now, if it would give them any planning capital for the 33 Comprehensive Plan, and if the City could demonstrate that they would build medium-density 34 residential ahead of any State reforms. 35 36 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he did not believe so because, by law, the City was required 37 to develop at this density at this location. He stated that the City was essentially doing the bare 38 minimum with this proposal and noted that any less development with fewer units would not meet 39 the City’s requirements. 40 41 Will Matzek, Kimley Horn, St. Paul, explained that they were proposing a 26-foot wide entrance, 42 which should be sufficient, and noted that Target’s drive aisles were 24 feet wide. He stated that 43 they also want this to be a safe development and have been working with staff at the Fire 44 Department. 45 46 Commissioner Holker asked about the fence on the west side and the request from the 47 homeowner to install a privacy fence rather than an ornamental fence, and asked if they had 48 spoken about this. 49 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 10 of 16 1 Mr. Matzek stated that they have only been working with staff up to this point and noted the 2 ornamental fence was what was desired at the Concept Plan phase, but noted that they could 3 have some discussions with the homeowner about this to find an amenable solution. 4 5 Commissioner Magistad asked when responsibility would transfer to the HOA. 6 7 Mark Kaltsas, 7035 Halstead Drive, Minnetrista, stated that he was one of the owners of the 8 property and explained that they would transfer the responsibility to the HOA when there was 9 about 75% ownership in the development. 10 11 Commissioner Magistad asked about the expected timeline if they were allowed to break ground 12 in 2025. 13 14 Mr. Kaltsas stated that it would come down to how quickly his real estate team can sell the 15 properties. He explained that because they were introducing a product that did not currently exist, 16 they were hopeful that there would be a demand in the market at their price point. 17 18 Commissioner Holker asked about the price point. 19 20 Mr. Kaltsas stated that it was not set but explained that they would come in lower than anything 21 that was new construction single-family homes in the City, and noted that he was hoping that it 22 would be between $500,000 and $900,000. He stated that he expects this to be about a 2-year 23 build if they were able to break ground in 2025. 24 25 Chair Huskins asked if there was a plan for a sample home. 26 27 Mr. Kaltsas stated that if they had to, they would build a model, but he intended to try to sell and 28 then use one of the initial builds to show others as people become interested. 29 30 Chair Huskins asked staff about the restrictions that may be related to sample homes in 31 developments. 32 33 Planning Director Griffiths stated that there were some restrictions, but explained that they 34 typically revolved around parking and construction access to the site, and noted that for this 35 development, he did not foresee there being any issues. 36 37 Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 8:17 P.M. 38 39 Paul Hirsch stated that he was the homeowner to the west and had spoken with Planning Director 40 Griffiths earlier today. He stated that he had been spoiled in not having any neighbors, and it 41 made him a bit teary to see what was happening, but he understood that this project would be 42 going in. He explained that he felt a privacy fence would be better than an ornamental fence. He 43 noted that he has a few really old trees and felt it would be crazy to build anything underneath 44 them, and did not see a reason that he should have to remove something that had been there for 45 50 years, and noted that he had been there for 40 years. He stated that the nature in the area 46 was fantastic and explained that he had been envisioning this kind of project forty years ago when 47 he bought the property, and stated that he felt like he was getting a rug yanked out from under 48 him because this was not what his vision was for the property. He stated that there are eagle 49 nests that are within 500 feet of the building area, which concerns him. He noted that he had 50 been on pins and needles since the Smithtown Crossing project happened 18 years ago and 51 hadn’t done anything to his house because this proposal came in to take over his property and CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 11 of 16 1 control it, which was the only thing he owned. He explained that he lay awake at night worrying 2 about this, even though he realized that there was nothing he could do and just had to take what 3 was getting crammed down his throat and hope for the best. He reiterated that he would request 4 that they install a privacy fence. 5 6 Chair Huskins asked Planning Director Griffiths to speak to this application as a PUD, which he 7 felt provided a degree of leverage for the City to make requests about the project and what types 8 of requests would be reasonable. 9 10 Planning Director Griffiths stated that with a PUD, it was not really for the City to leverage different 11 benefits from a development, but to look at the project that was more efficient or had a better 12 layout than what could otherwise be done with the City code. He noted that typically there were 13 other improvements with this kind of project because the applicants were trying to build a desirable 14 product, but the City was not necessarily in a position to leverage its approval to try to get different 15 things from the project. He explained that in this situation, the applicant was providing several 16 offsite improvements through the construction of a sidewalk and were in conversations with the 17 adjacent owner on the opposite side on an ornamental fence and felt that the Commission could 18 weigh in with a similar recommendation for a privacy fence in this instance, because it related to 19 screening for the adjacent homeowner. He stated that he had spoken with the developer today 20 about the concerns related to the trees that Mr. Hirsch had brought. 21 22 Mr. Kaltsas stated that they were amenable to installing a privacy fence as requested by Mr. 23 Hirsch and explained that they would work with him on possible tree issues and did not expect 24 that he would have any costs associated with their development. He explained that he understood 25 Mr. Hirsch’s plight and assured the Commission that they were not trying to do something that 26 was not in compliance or accordance with the plan. He stated that they had bought the property 27 knowing the guidance the City had for the property and explained that their intent was really to 28 create a transition between commercial on the east side and low-density residential on the west 29 side. He stated that if the Commission had other direction they wanted to give, they would be 30 happy to hear it and would work with Mr. Hirsch. 31 32 Commissioner Longo stated that, having 6 units that had such short backyards, he felt having 33 privacy fencing would be the most appropriate. 34 35 Mr. Kaltsas stated that a privacy fence may also be good for their buyers and agreed that it was 36 a good solution. 37 38 Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:25 P.M. 39 40 Commissioner Eggenberger noted that when the Commission gets proposals for a project on a 41 lot that had been vacant for years and the adjacent property owners do not want anything to be 42 built on it was hard and a bit sad, but the owner of the lot has the right, as long as they are within 43 City Code, to do what they want to with the lot. He stated that he felt for Mr. Hirsch and his 44 concerns, but would be voting in favor of this application. 45 46 Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Eggenberger seconded, recommending 47 approval of the Preliminary Plat and Development Stage Planned Unit Development 48 Application for Shorewood Carriage Homes located at 24560 Smithtown Road. 49 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 12 of 16 1 Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the only thing he would add was that the Commission 2 had heard, in good faith, that the applicant would work with the neighboring property owners on 3 making this development more acceptable to them. 4 5 Chair Huskins asked if the Commission needed to formalize that point as part of their 6 recommendation of approval. 7 8 Planning Director Griffiths stated that it would be part of the record, and staff would draft the 9 resolution that comes before the Council with language to that effect. 10 11 Motion passed 5/0. 12 13 Planning Director Griffiths stated that this item would come before the City Council on May 12, 14 2025. 15 16 Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 8:29 P.M. and reconvened at 8:32 P.M. 17 18 D. PUBLIC HEARING – NONCONFORMITIES CITY CODE AMENDMENTS 19 Applicant: City Initiated 20 Location: City-wide 21 22 Planning Director Griffiths reviewed the proposed City-wide City Code amendments related to 23 nonconformities and explained that the intent behind the proposed amendments was to make 24 things simpler for residents, the Commission, and staff. He outlined the two most substantial 25 policy changes that were being recommended and shared examples of when they would arise. 26 27 Commissioner Magistad gave the example of the most recent item, where the gentleman’s 28 property had been rezoned, and asked if that created a nonconformity. He asked, for example, if 29 that owner could build an addition on the house under these proposed rules. 30 31 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he would build an addition on the house under these rules. 32 33 Commissioner Longo stated that Planning Director Griffiths had mentioned certain things that are 34 reasonable and would not need a variance, but asked who would decide what was considered 35 reasonable because the change would no longer come before the Planning Commission. 36 37 Planning Director Griffiths explained that with the way the language was written, there would only 38 be very unique circumstances where variances would not be required, and explained that the 39 ordinance would be determining what would be considered reasonable, and City staff would 40 administer the ordinance. 41 42 Chair Huskins asked for a definition of ‘may be’ and noted that it may be, in part, in addition to the 43 question asked by Commissioner Longo, and explained that they could use an example. 44 45 Planning Director Griffiths explained that this was where the legal precedent came in and 46 explained that the way the State law was written was very wishy-washy. He stated that much of 47 the language that City Attorney Shepherd had put into the ordinance was also not very rigid to 48 allow for the flexibility of interpretation. He stated that in the situation mentioned by Chair Huskins, 49 the term ‘may’ meant that if you can demonstrate this certain thing, the City may grant it. He 50 explained that by using the term ‘may’ instead of ‘shall’, the City was trying to avoid potential 51 litigation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 13 of 16 1 2 Chair Huskins stated that to him, that was more of a risk than using the term ‘shall’ and could 3 require some form of mediation because what he thought may be completely different than what 4 Commissioner Eggenberger may think. He reiterated that he felt the risk of a challenge to this 5 may be higher with this approach. 6 7 Planning Director Griffiths stated that if that was something that concerned the Commission, he 8 could have a conversation with City Attorney Shepherd about those references. 9 10 Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if they said ‘shall’ in those instances, they could still run 11 into the same problem because then they have to decide which meant there would still be 12 ambiguity. 13 14 Chair Huskins clarified that he was not arguing that they should insert the term ‘shall’ but explained 15 that he had gotten hung up on the items that said ‘may’ and not ‘shall’ because the ‘shall’ 16 statements were easier. 17 18 Commissioner Longo stated that the use of the word ‘may’ could make a citizen think that they 19 may not need to ask for a variance, which may mean that things would be built or modified. 20 21 Chair Huskins stated that was why he had asked the generic question earlier about the meaning 22 of the word ‘may’. 23 24 Planning Director Griffiths stated that all he could say was that this language came from City 25 Attorney Shepherd’s office. He noted that this was a very complicated ordinance that covers a 26 lot of topics. He explained that between this meeting and the City Council meeting, he could have 27 a follow-up conversation with City Attorney Shepherd to discuss some of the Commission's 28 concerns. 29 30 Chair Huskins stated that he would like to see that happen. 31 32 Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he did not think having that conversation would hurt 33 anything. 34 35 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he felt it was a good question. 36 37 Chair Huskins asked about item 1201.03, Subd 1, item b related to continued nonconforming use 38 and stated that this ended with ‘but not, including expansion, enlargement, or intensification.’ He 39 noted that later in the document, he saw expansion being possible and asked if it might be better 40 to say something like ‘there are exceptions noted herein’ or something similar. 41 42 Planning Director Griffiths stated that this was the point where the language was confusing and 43 explained that this section came directly from State law and was saying the word ‘use’. He noted 44 that there were two different standards, nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures. He 45 reviewed examples of nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures. He noted that he also 46 wished that the State law was clearer. 47 48 Chair Huskins referenced item O. Appeal of estimated value of damage, on the last page and 49 stated that it felt odd to him that this was pasted on at the end when earlier in the document that 50 talked about the 50% and asked if there was a reason that this wasn’t more contiguous with that 51 portion of the ordinance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 14 of 16 1 2 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he was not sure there was a specific reason, but he could 3 check with the City Attorney on how this had been organized. 4 5 Commissioner Magistad asked if Planning Director Griffiths felt a homeowner that did not agree 6 with a decision made by the City about the need for variance, could use the Commission or 7 Council meeting as a forum to use this document to challenge that determination. 8 9 Planning Director Griffiths stated that residents were always welcome to appeal to the 10 Commission or Council if they disagreed with a determination that was made. 11 12 Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 8:54 P.M. There being no one at the meeting, he 13 closed the Public Hearing at 8:54 P.M. 14 15 Commissioner Eggenberger moved, Commissioner Holker seconded, recommending 16 approval of the City Initiated Nonconformities City Code Amendments for the City, with the 17 direction that Planning Director Griffiths discuss some of their concerns with the City 18 Attorney. Motion passed 5/0. 19 20 Planning Director Griffiths stated that this would come before the Council on May 27, 2025. 21 22 5. OTHER BUSINESS 23 24 A. Monthly Training Topic – Findings of Fact 25 26 Planning Director Griffiths explained that the City made decisions based on findings of fact and 27 the record and shared a brief training about how findings of fact explain how and why the City 28 reaches a decision. He noted that there was detailed information from the League of Minnesota 29 Cities included in the packet for their reference. 30 31 Commissioner Holker stated that she thought this information was great and put a bit of caution 32 in her mind not to be swayed too much by personal opinions if it was not consistent with the facts. 33 34 Chair Huskins gave the example of a situation where the Commission had heard the findings of 35 fact, but upon a vote, there was not a unanimous vote, and asked if that exposed the City if there 36 were non-unanimous recommendations. 37 38 Planning Director Griffiths stated that it did not expose the City at all and would be the same as 39 the Supreme Court having a 5-4 decision. He explained that what the court looks at is whether 40 the City followed its process, such as opening and closing the public hearing, considering what 41 people had to say, and developing findings of fact to support whatever the majority decision was. 42 43 Chair Huskins noted that they ask the dissenting Commissioner to offer reasons for their vote and 44 asked if that was important or if it was something that they should not be doing. 45 46 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he felt for this group, it made sense to ask that question so 47 it could be shared with the Council all of their thoughts on a project, but noted that it did not have 48 a substantial impact. He noted that the Commission would never get in trouble by providing more 49 information and would only get in trouble if it provided less information. 50 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 15 of 16 1 Chair Huskins suggested that the Commission agree that if there was a non-unanimous vote that 2 they would take the time to articulate the reasons. He stated that staff reports under former 3 Planning Director Darling, there was a sentence routinely added that he had not seen in Planning 4 Director Griffiths' reports. He stated that the sentence was something to the effect of, ‘The 5 Planning Commission may reasonably find otherwise’ which she included following her 6 recommendation. 7 8 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he did not include that sentence because he felt it was 9 common sense and stated that they had been appointed to the Commission to disagree with him 10 if they felt he was wrong. He noted that he would add that statement for variance resolutions 11 because that was where the subjective review criteria could be found. 12 13 Chair Huskins noted that he was not asking this sentence to be included but wanted to make sure 14 the Commission firmly understood that point, especially because there were two new 15 Commissioners. 16 17 Commissioner Eggenberger noted that his starting point was the staff recommendation, but he 18 did like the sentence former Planning Director Darling had included. 19 20 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he could certainly put the sentence back in for the 21 Commission. 22 23 There was a consensus of the Commission that they would like the sentence used by 24 former Planning Director Darling to be included, which clarified that the Commission did 25 not need to agree with the staff recommendation. 26 27 B. Liaisons for Upcoming Council Meetings 28 29 Commissioner Holker noted that many of tonight’s agenda items were being presented to the 30 Council on May 12, 2025, but there was not a liaison for that meeting and asked if these should 31 be aligned better. 32 33 Planning Director Griffiths stated that typically, the Park Commission sends a liaison to the first 34 Council meeting of the month, and the Planning Commission sends a liaison to the second 35 meeting of the month. He noted that typically in this situation where items were taken to the first 36 meeting of the month he takes on the role of providing an update for the Council and most of the 37 time, the Councilmember who serves as liaison to the Commission would also be present and 38 able to give some insight to the Council, if necessary. 39 40 May 27, 2025 – Commissioner Longo 41 June 23, 2025 – Commissioner Holker 42 July 28, 2025 – To be determined 43 44 Commissioner Eggenberger explained that, due to health reasons, he would be resigning from 45 serving on the Planning Commission. He explained that he was willing to stay on the Commission 46 until they found a replacement so they would not run into any quorum issues. 47 48 Planning Director Griffiths suggested that Commissioner Eggenberger send him an email 49 outlining his intention and willingness to continue serving until a replacement is found, and he will 50 bring that to the Council. He thanked Commissioner Eggenberger for his service to the City and 51 noted that he was sorry to see him go. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 16 of 16 1 2 C. Planning Commission Photo 3 4 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Communications Department had asked him to take a 5 photo of the Commission. 6 7 6. REPORTS 8 9 • Council Meeting 10 11 Planning Director Griffiths gave an overview of recent Council discussions and actions. 12 13 • Draft Next Meeting Agenda 14 15 Planning Director Griffiths stated he expected the agenda for the next meeting to be fairly light 16 and reviewed the applications. He noted that the City was actively recruiting for the open Planner 17 position and would be holding the second round of interviews sometime next week. 18 19 7. ADJOURNMENT 20 21 Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, adjourning the Planning 22 Commission Meeting of May 6, 2025, at 9:25 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. 23 Item 5A Planning Commission Meeting Item Title/Subject: Monthly Training Topic – Due Process & Public Hearings Meeting Date: June 3, 2025 Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Attachments: None 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, we will discuss due process and public hearings. One of the most unique responsibilities of the Planning Commission is to hold public hearings. This responsibility has been given to the Commission by the City Council, who relies on the Commission to take public testimony and provide the City Council with a recommendation. The City Council typically does not hold public hearings during their meetings. The purpose of holding a public hearing is to ensure due process. Due process ensures that all persons appearing before the Planning Commission will be treated equally and given the same opportunities. Due process encourages objective decision making by providing all interested persons with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Planning issues are frequently contested in court, and the outcome is often decided based on whether or not the Planning Commission provided participants due process. Public hearings must treat all interested participants fairly and equally, provide complete disclosure of what is being proposed to all parties, and provide the applicant and all citizens with the right to have their views and arguments heard. After the hearing, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation based on findings of fact to ensure that a court does not overturn the decision. Due process requires:  Adequate notice of public hearings sent to persons within a specified distance of the affected property and published in the City’s official newspaper.  The opportunity to be heard.  Findings of fact to be adopted to support recommendation.  No conflict of interest on the part of the Planning Commission.  Prompt decisions.  Records of the proceedings (minutes of the meeting). Generally, the Chairperson will explain the public hearing procedure to members of the audience prior to opening the public hearing. The Chairperson may remind the audience or speakers throughout the public hearing if they are getting off track. In some situations, the Commission may review an application, like a variance, which does not require a public hearing but rather a public meeting. In these situations, the Commission should still take public input as if a hearing was required. Formally opening and closing a public hearing is not required in this situation. Rather, the Chairperson can simply invite members of the public to provide input and then move on from that portion of the meeting. Page 2 Action Requested This information is being provided for discussion purposes only, no formal action is required.