Loading...
02-23-26 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet City Council meeting February 23, 2026 I am here as a citizen of Shorewood but also as an individual that has experience on Plan Commissions and a 10 year member of a Chamber of Commerce and the last year as Chamber President. This is important because I have participated in the development, writing and review of 3 Comprehensive plans, once as a Plan Commission member, once as President of the Chamber and once as a business leader and citizen at large. With that experience I have questions regarding Watten Ponds 2 proposed subdivision and how the City boards, Council and staff are approaching this decision. My primary question is: WHAT HAS CHANGED? In October of 2024 my wife and I inquired about developing a single lot on the Watten Pond 2 property. My email exchange with Marie Darling, former Director of Planning, is included with the 2 letters I have submitted to the city. Marie Darling, without discussion of the project scope, size of structure, foot print, or location denied any ability to build a home on this site. Her final response was: “There would be no area to construct a house on the property you look to develop.” In a prior response she wrote: “Staff researched the development approvals for the Watten Pond PUD and subdivision and reviewed the conservation easement that were approved with the development. The outlots were all obtained to preserve the areas for conservation and open space purposes.” So WHAT HAS CHANGED from Marie Darling’s interpretation of the PUD and conservation easements to now? The council needs to answer that #1 question. The Comprehensive Plan is updated every 10 years. The City has Subdivision Regulation, under Chapter 1202. This provision allows for and requires consideration of the Comprehensive Plan when reviewing and potentially denying development related petitions. It aligns with Minnesota state law (Stat 4672.351) and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Comprehensive Plan in the Chapter, Natural Resources Plan states: Perhaps above all other characteristics of the community, Shorewood residents value the natural setting in which it is located and have found that protecting sensitive features such as wetlands, shorelands, floodplains and wooded areas has an aesthetic, economic, health and even psychological benefit to the community as a whole. The natural setting makes Shorewood a very attractive place to live. Ironically, this attraction creates pressure for new development which can threaten natural amenities. Shorewood is committed to maintain its high quality natural environment. nd The 2 question before the council is: Is the subdivision of the Watten Ponds 2 consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan? Specifically the preservation of natural amenities and Shorewood’s “high quality natural environment”? Environmentally wetlands are protected. We see it with the setbacks, overlays, MCWD, Lake Minnetonka overlay, drainage plans, etc. What we are talking about is what connects all of the protected wetlands. It is small plots of woods and outlots that connect ponds, marshes and lakes to be connected. IT IS the woods and higher lands that provide for the habitat for deer, turkeys, fox, hawks, owls and eagles. You do not have eagles nesting in wetlands. Eagles nest in tall trees that border the wetlands. Approving development of Watten Pond 2 may protect the adjacent wetlands but it absolutely destroys the woods and ecosystem that uses and supports the wetlands! Isn’t this one of the questions the Comprehensive plan addresses in the Environmental section? rd This is the 3 question the council must answer. Again, having been a member of a Plan Commission, I fear that this subdivision and future developments to the North are being fed to the Council like pabulum to a baby. Small bite size amounts that is easy for you to swallow. First the subdivision, then building permits with requests for variances. What variances? 1. Fire lane code for width of service drive and required turn around. 2. Variance on encroachment into wetland setbacks 3. Variances for excessive grading to develop buildable worksites 4. Variances to allow utilities to be routed through wetlands and of course with proper mediation of the disturbed areas The Council needs to do its due diligence on any potential and future variances. Two questions remain unanswered: 1. Why is there a need for an easement the size of the adjacent court? a. What purpose does this serve? b. If the City needs access to Outlot C they: i. Have permission to cross my property ii. Or create a narrow 6’-8’ easement would suffice for unabated access. 2. Why has the Plan Commission and City Council been so concerned with a possible lawsuit from the developer? a. A city is free to make decisions of what is best for a city and its citizens without the proverbial gun to the head of a lawsuit. That is subtle blackmail. b. Specifically the City can now use Section 1202 to deny a petition if it does not comport with the intention of the Comprehensive plan. That is unless the “City” has made or inferred promises to the developer that they would be able to sub-divide the lot and develop multiple homes, they can run utilities north to their adjacent properties, that Clara Rd will be developed… If that is the case then I ask, Who in the City did that? 1. Certainly not the Plan Commission as they are not in contact with the developer 2. I hope not Council members that are voted in and entrusted by citizens to make decisions in the best interest of the city and citizens. 3. I hope not City Staff as that would be stepping beyond their roles as employees of the city. So my last question is why is the City so concerned about a lawsuit and what has changed since 2024?