Is It Really About Pickleball?

Putting the Council and Land Use Zoning to the Test

At its 10.23.23 regular meeting (watch here) the City Council came up against an extreme development challenge proposed for the property at 24650 Smithtown Road.

The project has been described as a paddle ball club, lifestyle condos, and/or vehicle storage on a 103’ x 411’ lot. A high percentage of building space is devoted to vehicle accommodations. Described as an “amenity for all of Shorewood,” the gated facility was private/owner use only. Read the full description here (starting at Page 122).

Images above are as submitted to the Planning Commission. Descriptions vary.

Two buildings were proposed on the site. One with seven garage spaces with 14’ garage doors, and the other with four spaces. The second building included an upper level paddle ball court and lounge designated a “club house.”

• Variances were needed for setbacks, height, hardcover, parking, hours of operation, landscaping and screening. “Those most concerning are height of buildings and retaining walls, screening to the west and lack of parking on the site.” – Planning Director Darling
• As an alternative to variances, a PUD (planned unit development) was requested. City Planner Darling pointed out that in return for the PUD, few concessions had been put forward by the builder.
• An amendment to the Comp Plan was requested to change the zoning from residential to commercial. The amendment requires a ⅘ vote of Council. “This is the plan we have in front of us…they are asking for too much…” – CM Callies

There was vigorous debate between CM Zerby, who supported the project, and CM Callies and Mayor Labadie, who did not. Collectively, all council members, except Zerby, voiced numerous challenges to the appropriateness of the concept for the parcel because of the concessions required to bring it into compliance with City code.

• CM Zerby argued that the Planning Commission had voted 4-1 to approve the project and the Council should follow their recommendation. “…The approval was tepid from the Planning Commission and a strong ‘no’ from city staff. Those are two data points we cannot ignore.” – CM Sanschagrin (see Planning Commission minutes starting at page 81)
  
• CM Zerby pointed out that the land use zoning map was not updated ten years ago to reflect the Council vote to change from commercial to low to medium density residential. The Acting* City Attorney firmly stated the Comp Plan takes precedence over the update of the zoning map. “Every single applicant has a duty to look at both documents [comp plan and zoning map] when making an application.” – Acting City Attorney Korine Land
  
• “Ultimately, it’s the Council’s decision whether to follow the lawyer’s [advice] or not.” – CM Zerby
• “We will follow the City Attorney’s guidance.” – Mayor Labadie

Per the Attorney’s recommendation, the Council voted 4-1 to deny the application. Zerby was the dissenting vote.

*Acting City Attorney Korine Land was present due to conflicts of interest for the regular City Attorney.