Loading...
01-06-26 Planning Comm Mtg MinutesCITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2026 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Longo and Magistad; Planning Director Griffiths; and Planner Osowski Absent: Commissioner Holker; Council Liaison Maddy APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, approving the agenda for January 6, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 18, 2025 Chair Huskins noted that he had passed along some minor edits to Planning Director Griffiths before the meeting. Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2025, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE Applicant: Nathan Mendiola, Gonyea Custom Homes Location: 5035 St. Albans Bay Road City Planner Osowski reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage at 5035 St. Albans Bay Road. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit is required because the square footage of accessory buildings exceeds 1200 square feet, so City Code caps the amount of accessory shelters. He shared a picture of the property and noted that there is already an open building permit for a single-family home on the property, which would be separate from this application. He explained that there would be a reduction in impervious surface. He shared that there was one comment that was received from the neighbor to the Southeast who had some concerns about grading towards her property, which the City Engineer has talked to her about, and requested that some changes be made to the grading plan to make sure that water drains to the back of the property. He shared all the ways that the Applicant meets the existing City Code as found in the Staff Report and that Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Huskins asked if there were any questions for Planner Osowski. Commissioner Magistad explained that he did not have questions as the grading seemed to be addressed. Planner Osowski pointed out the conditions that the City Engineer gave if the Planning Commission wanted to have City Engineer Budde’s conditions put on the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Huskins asked what the Staff’s position is on the recommendation given by the City Engineer about the grading. Planner Osowski noted that the recommendations are certainly able to be done, may be a little challenging with the winter conditions, but are possible. Commissioner Magistad asked if the 109 square foot reduction was recommended because it needs to fit within the ten percent. Planner Osowski noted that it was correct, and after the initial application was submitted, there was some discrepancy in the math, so it was asked to be reduced, and the total will be about 1,997 square feet in accessory buildings. Commissioner Magistad asked if the water drainage recommendations needed to be made prior to the building of the buildings or after, if something were to take place. Planner Osowski shared that it would need to take place during construction, not after the fact. Nathan Mendiola, 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road, stated he is still decreasing the hard cover of what was there and that the garage will not be going in until after the winter, so water drainage recommendations will be able to be addressed in the spring. He shared that the driveway would not be going in until spring as well. Chair Huskins asked when the single-family home would be completed. Mr. Mendiola stated that it would be in October, because the ground was just broken in December. Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Robert Boyer, no address given, stated that his property is directly behind the applicant’s property. He added that he has no problems with the development and what is being done. He stated that his only concern is that at the back of the property, there is a 500-gallon oil tank and freon tanks that are buried, as the back of the property was used as a garbage space by other neighbors in the past. He noted that he would like to see that removed in the course of the renovation. Chair Huskins asked if that was new information to the Staff or previously known. Planner Osowski stated that it is new information to him. Chair Huskins invited the Applicant back to comment on the new information. Mr. Mendiola shared that it was discovered about a month ago by the project manager, and the client is currently looking at ways to deal with it and going back to the realtor, as it was not disclosed when the property was purchased. He added that the logistics and costs are being figured out to get the items removed. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it sounded like the client and Property Manager are working to get the issue resolved. He recommended adding a condition to the Conditional Use Permit that the Applicant has indicated that it will be removed; therefore, it should be removed. Mr. Mendiola asked how the condition would pertain to the garage, so that when he takes it back to his team, he knows how to address it, since it would be a condition that would have to go along with the garage, but it seems to be a separate issue. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, as part of the Conditional Use Permit, the site needs to be compliant with the City Code, and having the items is a violation of the City Code. He noted that construction can proceed, but before the project is completed, the items would need to be removed. Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. Commissioner Longo stated that he does not have anything against the project, as long as the items are going to be removed. Commissioner Magistad stated that he is okay with the application, and with the new information, it seems that the Commission is making it so that the project will comply with the City Code now because of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Huskins stated that he does not have any issues either. Planning Director Griffiths shared that if the Commission wants to include the conditions that were shared by City Engineer Budde, as well as the condition that was just discussed, that would need to be included in the motion, as well as the conditions that the Staff is recommending. Commissioner Magistad moved, Longo seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage at 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road with the added condition that the hazardous waste be removed before the project is completed, the conditions presented by City Engineer Budde, and the conditions from the City Staff. Motion passed 3/0. Chair Huskins stated that it would be taken up by the City Council on January 26, 2026. PUBLIC HEARING – WATTEN PONDS 2nd ADDITION PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Applicant: Gravity Investment, LLC Location: Parcel ID 2911723440029 Planning Director Griffiths reviewed a request for a preliminary and final plat for Watten Ponds 2nd Addition on an unaddressed property on the Western end of Maple View Court. He explained that a preliminary and final plat are tools used to subdivide a property. He further explained what each one meant. He shared and explained pictures of the property as found in the Staff Agenda Packet. He did note that there would be one shared driveway, due to the trees and wetland areas. He noted that there is a separate application being done to remove second street that was originally platted on the map and will not be used as such, which will go before the Council. Chair Huskins asked if that is not approved by the Council, does that have any consequences for the application before the Commission. Planning Director Griffiths noted that it would not, as the project would meet City Code regardless of whether the right-of-way was vacated or not. Planning Director Griffiths continued to show the pictures from the project and described what was found in the Staff Agenda Packet. He explained that in an application for preliminary plats, there is a set of review criteria that is established and found in the City Code, which he went over for the project as found in the Analysis in the Staff Agenda Packet. He shared that public notice was given, and there have been three comments from residents since. He stated that the concerns were setbacks, clear-cutting the land, impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and the accuracy of the plans in the public notice, to which the Staff responded. He noted that state law identifies preliminary plats as a quasi-judicial authority, which means that the Council and the Commission are tasked with applying law, not creating new rules, but verifying that the project meets all the rules that are currently in place. He noted that the Staff is recommending approval of the application and reviewed the conditions that the Applicant would need to meet. Commissioner Longo asked about the condition of adherence to the Tree Policy, is that referring to the 21 trees that need to be added. Planning Director Griffiths confirmed that to be the case. Commissioner Magistad asked about the condition that states proof of submittal of an application to the Minnehaha Watershed District would imply approval. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the recommended approval is that the Applicant receive recommended approval from all other jurisdictions. Commissioner Magistad asked about the elevation of the adjacent properties, especially those to the East. Planning Director Griffiths shared a picture that showed that the contour lines generally show a slope towards the wetlands, with the highest point on the map being where lot two is, and the water draining down from there. He added that the review shows that it would not drain into adjacent sites and that a drainage map is included in the plans. Chair Huskins asked about any utilities that will need to be installed and if the utilities will be accessible to the City for anything that will need to be repaired. Planning Director Griffiths noted that any utilities would come from the end of Maple View Court and would be in a location in which the City could reach if needed, or would be private utilities, which would be the responsibility of the property owner. Audrius Asakenas, Applicant, 5520 Tonka Bay, stated that he is a local builder, business owner, and owner of the property. He noted that he was looking for approval of the project and had two engineers who would be able to answer questions as needed as well. Chair Huskins asked when construction would begin and end on the two homes. Mr. Asakenas noted that construction would take about a year after approval, with the start in the spring. Chair Huskins opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, explained the location of his property in relation to the proposed project by showing a picture that was viewed on the screen. He explained that there is an easement that was put in so that the City has access to Outlet C, which it is not utilizing. He thanked the City Staff for meeting with many of the residents. He noted that the neighborhood is understanding that this property will be developed at some level, but they want it to be consistent with the Codes and responsibilities that the City has laid out for any builder. He feels that the cart is being put before the horse with the number of things that need to be done prior to approval. He shared that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed approval was one of those. He stated that in his line of work in Human Resources, something could not be moved forward until all of the work had been done. He stated that the Staff is saying to move forward with it, and then the City will make sure that everything is done, which is not the correct way to do it. He pointed out that he has issues with the City doing things in this manner, because recently, there were trees put in his backyard that he had to deal with from a different project. He shared that trusting the City to do the right thing with all 20 conditions that still need to be met does not feel right. He pointed out that he was on a planning commission in a different city, and that he understood the rules of the Staff, but that the Commission also needs to adhere to what the Staff is saying and what the citizens want as well. He used the pictures that showed that the houses would be very close to some of the other properties, and he would not want a house that is that close to be there. He noted that the Commission needed to measure and balance with the existing neighbors who have been there for many years. He noted that it is not that they do not want it developed, but rather just done correctly for everybody who is there. He feels the City is not doing the right thing with the way they are using the easement, noting that it is gamesmanship. He pointed out that it should matter what the citizens want as well, and the Commission needs to consider that. Mary Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, stated her property is adjacent to the property being proposed for development. She brought a drawing of her property and the proposed property, and how the two would relate to each other. She stated that she and her husband are the original homeowners and have lived on Maple View Court for 26 years. She described the process that she and her husband had to go through to build their home, being denied their plans multiple times. She noted that their builder swore he would never build in Shorewood again. She added that all the other homes had to go through the same process, and there is no question of where the front, back, or side of each home is. She pointed out that it seemed impossible to have a house in that location and still comply with Shorewood’s property restrictions. She stated that the structure is ten feet from her property line. She pointed out that the front of the house does not align with what most would say to be the front of the house, because then 50 feet would be needed, but there is only ten feet there. She stated that calling the side of the house the front is being used to make the improbable site possible. She used the pictures to point out many of the issues she had with the property. She shared that she has not seen a drawing of the proposed building next to her own property. She stated that it would impact the value of her property, but not in a good way. She questioned why this spot was now developable when it had not been before. She noted that she would expect the same rules that she was obligated to follow 20 years ago would still be enforced today. She asked the Commission to vote no, and noted her curiosity for the developer to share what is envisioned for the spot. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked when in the history of the Planning Commission had over 100 mature, healthy trees been destroyed to allow two houses to be built on questionable buildable land. He pointed out that the property has been for sale for 25 years and no one has bought it. He stated that it is not just the trees but the entire ecosystem that matters with the project. He pointed out that building the two homes would be incongruent with the established neighborhood. He stated that allowing the project to move forward would be contrary to what he thought Shorewood stood for. He quoted the City Code 1102.01, “The Purpose of an Intent for the City of Shorewood. The name of this City denotes its character, a City of shoreland, water, and woods, natural assets hold its citizens in trust for future generations.” He noted that the City has many parks, but there is not much acreage that is left in natural native estate, and this would be a great opportunity. He stated this is arguably the healthiest ecosystem in Shorewood and compared it to Freeman Park. He noted that people are meant to be good stewards of things and to leave them better than the way they were found. He asked the Commission to deny approval of the project. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, stated that when the notifications came out, there was not a lot of detail given. He stated that he has lived there for 21 years, and it has been a privilege to be a resident of Shorewood. He stated that the project lacks transparency and that, in working with the City in the past, it has been very transparent, and that is what he liked. He stated that he has been told by many people, realtors, and members of the City, that this property would not be developed. He noted his concern for the approval going through when the City Engineer has 20 conditions for approval to happen. He noted that the maps that were shown lack proper scale, which is an issue and paints a disingenuous picture. Kate Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, stated that she has lived there for 34 years since it was first proposed for development after Watten lived there. She noted that the current development is beautiful and that the tree preservation was very well thought out. She described the wetlands and the importance of the ecosystem, and how the buildings would change that. Janene Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, stated that she is a neighbor but also an attorney. She stated that it is a follow-up to an email about a public notice, which was written on January 3, 2026. She noted that she addressed the incomplete information provided in the public notice, with special note of incorrect scaling of the map, the incorrect second use of a Maple View cul-de-sac, residents’ homes were not included on the map, and many of the residents of the neighborhood got together to discuss and had to visit the County maps to determine where exactly they were in relation to the new project. She noted that there was no map legend or title, and the second page of the notice was a satellite map, which did not include the possible build areas. She stated that, given the unclear notices, there was no way for those who were given them to fully understand the true nature of the project. She explained that the same map is found on the City website, and there is a title, but the scale is still incorrect, and it is found on page 23 of the Staff Agenda Packet. She furthered that the City Engineer noted that the scale is incorrect and asked for a revision. She explained that the Staff stated that notice was proper for the prior meeting, and were stating Minnesota Statute section 452.358 subsection 3b, which mandates notice of time and place in the official newspaper at least ten days before the hearing; however, she feels the City failed to read that statute in conjunction with the applicable Minnesota State Stature 505 which sets the technical rules for plats, including that plats be based on accurate surveys as they become permeant public land records once approved. She argued that because the City sent the incorrect document as part of the documents, the notice failed and made it impossible for affected residents to accurately assess the proposed development. She added that to participate effectively in the hearing, residents had to do their own research and ground work, which does not seem to be a normal part of the process. She asked the Commission not to approve the application until corrections have been made. She stated that several residents met with the Planning Director, and he argued that the City could not redo the notice since it had already been 90 days since the filing of the application for approval of the preliminary and final plat approval. She stated that there is 120 day requirement, during which if the City does not approve the action or do anything before this time period, then it will already be preapproved. She noted that no legal authority was presented for that. She furthered that the Planning Director was referring to Minnesota Statute 15.99, which is the time deadline for agency action, subdivision 3a, which states that the time limit begins upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy. She added that if the survey scale is inaccurate, and the survey was part of the application and the public notice packet, then the application was not complete, and the notice clock never properly began, and it must be reset. She noted that she brings the legal and technical issues before the Commission, not only asking that the request be denied, but to get them on the record, exhaust administrative remedies in case of future litigation that could be foreseen. She added that based on the information, she is requesting that the application be denied at this time. Todd Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, stated his house’s location and referred to a picture of it as well. He noted that there is a pond next to his property that will be affected by the run off lot two of the proposed development. He described the feel of the neighborhood with the trees, water areas, wildlife, and space that is available. He noted that the neighborhood would be changed into just another neighborhood, like many others, with houses on top of each other if this proposed development were to go in. He added that adding homes is important, but two more large single-family homes will not help the housing crisis, the elderly, or the economically disadvantaged. He shared that this proposal brings nothing to the City, and it is important for the City to maintain residential diversity, value areas that are not densely packed neighborhoods. He added that if these houses are built, diversity will never come back. He stated that the City has told residents that their opinions do not matter, as the decision has already been made. He asked why the opinions of the neighbors do not matter, as the residents of Maple View Court have invested much time and money into the neighborhood. He stated that it is not the City or the new developer who made Maple View Court what it is, but rather the neighbors who are asking that the request be denied. He noted that the documents that were provided were inaccurate, but the City stated that the documents actually did not have to be provided at all. He asked that the Commission exercise its authority and give this application a fair analysis by denying the application until it is complete and accurate, and help the residents understand what the application will actually do to their houses. He stated that with additional time, the Commission can do a fair analysis rather than just making sure that the boxes are checked. He furthered that the Minnesota law of land use exists to protect current residents as much as for the developers. He stated that, contrary to the review of the City bureaucrats under Minnesota law, as enforced by Minnesota courts, the interest of the residents does matter. He stated that the City is entrusted with and legally obligated to use its regulatory powers to protect residents' interests, not just the interests of developers. He explained that a fair analysis means balancing the impact for, on the one hand, the neighborhood, the environment, and the existing residents, against a developer who wants two more large single-family houses regardless of the impact on the neighbors or the neighborhood. He asked that the application be denied. Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, stated that the parking and the staging that must be done on site is not included on the map. He asked about the extent of the tree removal and grading, and how the equipment would be able to be housed on the property. He pointed out that all the drawings had an inaccurate scale, which does not allow the residents to make an assessment of what is being seen. He stated that in speaking with a wetland engineer, it would be unusual to move ahead with anything final without hearing the final report from the Watershed District. He stated that residents were not given enough information to make educated comments or to ask educated questions. He noted that this hearing should not be happening, and the City has pushed ahead even after hearing that there is erroneous information that was given to the residents. He stated that the City Attorney has decided that it is legal to move ahead with the process, but in his opinion, it is totally unethical. He asked that the Planning Commission deny anything until the residents have full and error-free information on which to base educated questions and comments. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, stated that the City Engineer’s report reads that a future phase may include constructing homes North of Clara Avenue, which is one of the roads that is going to be vacated, so it is mapped but does not exist. He continued that the potential lot North of Clara Avenue does not have sanitary sewer or water service provided within Birch Bluff Road, so the plan is to service the lot from the proposed utilities, as he pointed out on the pictures on the screen, from Maple View Court. He pointed out that this lot is not part of this project, but that it will be needed in order to provide services to this future lot, and this will cause much more tree take-down to get to the Clara Avenue lot. He noted that it is mentioned in the information, but not part of the approval, so it seems that the developer has this plan going forward with the purchase of the lot. Mary Bension, 25670 Maple View Court, noted that her property is adjacent to the property and they intend to have their property surveyed independently, because she does not feel confident that what is out there is accurate. She added that there is a tree or two that she believes are on her property and are slated for removal. Chair Huskins asked if she was suggesting that the ten feet is not accurate. Ms. Benson noted that she just wants it confirmed. She has a line that is on her property, and one of the trees appears to fall within her property that is slated for removal. Chair Huskins asked, as a point of order, of Planning Director Griffiths, if he would like to address anything first or if the developer should be allowed to address anything first. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the developer should be able to respond as part of the public hearing. Tom Goodrum, Independent Planning Consulting representing Audrius, 9841 Xerxes Curve, Bloomington, stated that the company knew that it would be a sensitive sight and that they would be code-compliant all the way through. He noted that all City requirements have been met. He stated that whether the City standards are correct is not for them to choose, but what the City has set is being followed. He noted that he has a lot of experience with planning. He stated that the property owner fell in love with the piece of property, just like all others in the neighborhood. He commented that the neighborhood is gorgeous. He pointed out that the role of the Planning Commission is to decide if the planning application meets the standards of the ordinance. He stated that they knew that they needed to be completely understanding of the ordinance, and the wetlands needed to be protected, code-compliant. He pointed out in a picture that the roads are built within right-of-ways, and to be compliant with City Code. He noted that as a condition of approval, the City is asking that it has access to its property, which extends the right-of-way so that the City has access out. He shared that the conditions are happy to be met and the developer is working through them with the City. He stated that the Staff heard from the Watershed and that what has been submitted will be compliant. He stated that there are always conditions of approval, and 18 is actually a small number, as the developer is obligated to meet the conditions, and they will be met. He explained that there are costs associated with not doing things correctly, and the City can have it done the way they feel it needs to be accurately done. He pointed out that having conditions on a preliminary plat is very typical. He stated that they want to be good neighbors, they are being code-compliant, and they feel they are being sensitive to the area. He noted that the scale was their fault, but that all of the measurements and lot lines are to scale. He stated that Lot One is 1.63 acres, and is well over the City requirement, with the building area being 5,500 square feet, the building pad is 40 feet wide, 135 feet long, which is plenty of room for a nice home to be placed on. He shared that Lot Two is a two-acre lot, and the building area is 12,000 square feet, with the building dimensions being 75 feet by 152 feet. He noted that the homes are 50 feet away from the wetlands. He feels the developer has looked at the history and has tried to do the right thing throughout the process. Commissioner Longo asked if two lots need to be built. He pointed out that all the concerns seem to be coming from the one lot. Mr. Goodrum noted that there is actually room for three lots that meet City Code. He noted that if there is the ability to do two lots and still meet all requirements, then the developer would like to do two lots. Commissioner Longo asked where the materials and the equipment would go that would build the houses. Mr. Goodrum stated that on lot two, there is a 12,000 square foot buildable area, and that is plenty of room to build and have materials on. He pointed out that the setback standards are being met by being ten feet off. He stated that having that large an area and that much acreage available gives them the ability to do what is needed. Chair Huskins asked if the 90 trees that need to come down are inclusive of what is needed for staging as well. Mr. Goodrum noted that nothing is being suggested at this time, as the homes are custom-built homes, and the area that is available to work with will be worked with. Chair Huskins noted that it was not really an answer. Mr. Goodrum stated that he does not really know at this time because it is a custom-built home. Commissioner Longo clarified that the plan does not show what the homes will look like. Mr. Goodrum pointed out that the plans are showing what needs to be done on the sites to get them ready to be built on. He added that the building permit is a whole separate building application. Commissioner Longo asked how the grading of Lot One will be accomplished with the water going to the pond on the East side. Brady Busselman, Civil Engineer with Hill Incorporated, 299 Highway 13, Burnsville, stated that there is a very clear break point in drainage along the East property line. He pointed out that the neighbor was correct that the water does drain to the pond from the East, but it is not from the site. He added that this site drains to the West or to the South into the wetlands, so no runoff from this property will be going to the East. Commissioner Longo asked if that would be the same once there is a building on the site, because right now there is a hill, but later it will be a flat area. Mr. Busselman noted that the drainage will be maintained, and that it is monitored by the City and the Watershed, and will be ensured by the property owners. He noted that the impervious area has to go to the onsite treatment, so everything will be captured and directed to the ponding onsite. Greg Larson, 25535 Orchid Circle, stated that the neighbors do not believe they have enough information to come into the meeting and make reasonable comments and questions. He pointed out that the space for the houses is just a conjecture and that what the houses will be is unknown. He pointed out that the scale of the maps is wrong, and the City was aware of this, which made it incredibly difficult for the neighbors to make any judgments. He asked if the scale on the maps is inaccurate. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that with respect to the plan scale, two sheets had issues with the scale bar, which were sheets two and three, but the remaining pages on the plans were accurate. He noted that the Staff did receive a revised version from the Applicant that day, which fixed the scale bar. He stated that the scale bar itself was inaccurate, but the actual dimensions on the plan were correct. He pointed out that the representation seen on the screen is correct, and the scale did not impact the representation of the lot. He stated that the scale bar is important on the two pages, but the actual dimensions are what matter, and those were correct. He noted that the scale bar being inaccurate did not result in a change to the overall representation of the project. Mr. Larson asked for a particular page that was sent with the hearing notice be shown on the screen. He noted that the residents were given information that shows that the driveway comes off of a new cul-de-sac, but are now being told it is an easement. He is asking that the City go back and provide adequate information that the residents can use to decide on how to go forward. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked if the 18 contingencies would all be completed before the trees are torn down. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the conditions are required to be met before any work can begin on the site. Mr. Benson asked about the equipment on the property and if it would be able to be done without infringing on the wetlands. He also asked if two homes were being built at once. He asked about the impervious surface of the houses being unknown at this time, and how it could be known. Brady Busselman, Civil Engineer with Hill Incorporated, 299 Highway 13, Burnsville, clarified that the building pads are maximums, so the tree clearing is to max out the buildable area. He noted that they view the design as a conservative look at what the tree clearing would be required to build homes. He stated that likely if someone comes into build the home, the tree clearing would likely be less than that, which is not known, rather his opinion. He stated that the impervious area is designed to assume the worst-case scenario, so the maxed-out building areas, the 5,500 square feet plus the 12,000 square feet, and the driveways are what will be designed for stormwater management. Chair Huskins asked if the tree preservation plan, as it exists now, contemplates a pad size that is the maximum pad size, and the ultimate home builder could utilize the entire pad or something smaller, but nothing larger. Mr. Busselman stated that it is correct as it is meeting the setbacks from the property lines, the wetlands setbacks, the wetlands buffers, and is squared off to a reasonable dimension. Mr. Busselman also noted that, as far as construction staging goes, it goes hand in hand; if there is a larger area to clear, to build the house, then there is room to stage. He noted that this is something that has been done before, and that custom builders can work around trees. Commissioner Longo pointed out that the acreage includes the wetlands. Mr. Busselman stated that it is correct, but there is still a significant area to build the homes. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked where the equipment will be stored. Tom Goodrum, Independent Planning Consulting representing Audrius, 9841 Xerxes Curve, Bloomington, stated that it is unknown if the houses will be built at the same time, but if they are, he used a picture to point out where the equipment could be staged. He pointed out that the conditions of approval will be met throughout the process, and then again when the building permit is obtained, which will show the staging areas. He noted that typically barriers are put around the trees that are to be protected, and there is a plan with the City that needs to be followed as well. He added that the developer wants to market it as wooded areas and to be good neighbors who save the trees and work with the community. Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, stated that he is a 40-year resident of Shorewood. He thanked the neighbors for a wonderful representation of how democracy should work. He pointed out that the property is gorgeous. He stated that right now he is dealing with the City having done a good job of maintaining the trees that were supposed to be a buffer in his backyard, but they were clear-cut, and the City did not enforce what they said they were going to enforce. He encouraged the residents to make sure that does not happen, and the Planning Commission should not let that happen as well. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, pointed out that the builder did not know if there would be one house or two houses being built at a time, which could lead to a longer construction time. He stated that placing barriers will not necessarily help when compaction is going to kill trees. He noted that tree replacement is not the same as having the trees that are currently there. Katherine Van De Ruijtenbeek, 25735 Maple View Court, stated that it is said that the trees will be saved because of the escrow, but once the trees have been cut down, the money in the bank will not save the trees that were. She asked how the escrow protects the trees. Janene Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, asked if there are plans or models of what is going to be built in each of the spots. She noted that many of her windows would look out on lot one. Audrius Asakenas, Applicant, 5520 Tonka Bay, stated that there are hundreds of plans, as they are working with other designers and engineers to decide what that will be. He noted that this is his job and is currently doing the same sort of thing in Tonka Bay. He stated that he is the builder and will be on the site every day. He shared that it is his goal to save as many trees as possible, because there will be two houses and families that will want to be in the house with the trees and have a safe place to be at the end of the cul-de-sac. He stated that he will be trying everything to save the trees. He shared that working within the means of the setbacks, he wants to create as much privacy as possible. He stated that he would love to build both houses at the same time if possible, which would save time and money for him. He noted that because he is a small builder, sometimes the bank will not let him do more than one home at a time. Chair Huskins clarified that the hope is to build two homes at the same time, but that is not a commitment. Mr. Asakenas stated that it is the hope to build two at the same time, but it is dependent on finances. Cheryl Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, pointed out that being the builder and being there every day is different than actually living with people so close to your house. She asked where the front door would be. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the front door does not have to face the street. He explained that City Code does not regulate the orientation of a home on a lot. Ms. Vierthaler noted that it does not matter in this case because the side of the house regulates how far the other homes can be in relation to their neighbors. Chair Huskins asked where the builder intended the front door of the house to be. Tom Goodrum, Independent Planning Consulting representing Audrius, 9841 Xerxes Curve, Bloomington, noted that because there are no specific building plans at this time, the assumption would be that the front door would be on the West side of the property. He stated that the designation of what a side yard is and what a front yard is does not designate where the house location is or the placement of doors on a house. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, stated that the definition of side, front, and back is totally relevant. He stated that a side yard is only ten feet, but the front yard and backyard need to have 50 feet. He explained that it means everything. Chair Huskins agreed that the definition does matter. He noted that the orientation that was presented is that the side facing the neighbor is the side yard. Mr. Benson noted that Mr. Goodrum stated that the front would be facing the West. Planning Director Griffiths stated that when the City establishes setbacks in its City Code, those setbacks are based on the configuration of the property lines, not the orientation of the home itself. He noted that the homeowner is free to configure a home on the lot however they wish. He shared that the City Code defines, based on the characteristics of the property, what the side, rear, and front property lines are. He explained that City Code 1201.02 defines the lot line front as the boundary having the least width of frontage on a public right of way or street, which in this case is Maple View Court. He furthered that even if the unplatted right-of-ways were factored in or the bump out on Maple View Court did not exist, the existing Maple View Court would be the shortest distance on a public street. He continued that if the proposal is taken away, and as the lot sits today, the front line is Maple View Court. He explained that the side lot lines are defined in the City Code as adjacent to that, and the rear yard is opposite the front. He reiterated that the City Code does not contemplate the orientation of the home; all that is looked at is the setbacks from adjacent property lines. Mary Bension, 25670 Maple View Court, stated that in the prior meeting, she was told that the front of the house faces the street. She noted that the City is measuring from the circle to obtain the 50 feet. She shared that the City is calling the front something different than she would expect to see, so that the back and the front have the room that is needed. She stated that, as the builder said, the front door faced west, then the back would face east and not be in Code. Chair Huskins explained that, based on what Planning Director Griffiths has stated, two different things are being conflated. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the orientation of the home does not impact the building setbacks. He noted that there is no game being played; rather City Code establishes where the side, rear, and front yards are. He stated that if there were no subdivision being proposed, this would still be the same orientation. He explained that the East property line will always be the side property line, and the North line will always be the rear property line. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, pointed out that the Applicant will not be a part of the community. He noted that his concern is with the constant vagueness and the non-answers that the residents are getting. Audrius Asakenas, Applicant, 5520 Tonka Bay, explained where he lives and why he lives in different locations. He explained that he is a resident of Excelsior currently and will soon be a resident of Tonka Bay. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, asked what the need or the reason was for the large easement. He noted on a picture that he owns a part of the property next to the lot that the City owns, and in those seven years of ownership, there has not been one City worker there. He stated that he has tried to buy parts of the property but has been denied, and, oddly, there is a need for the City to have access to the property. A resident asked a question, which Chair Huskins declared as not germane to the hearing at hand. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked about how the property can be ten feet off of his property line. Chair Huskins asked to look at the picture of the property line where the resident lives, and to define the front, side, and rear property lines using the picture, but it may not be the orientation of the home built. Planning Director Griffiths used a picture to describe where the front line, rear, and side lot lines are located. He explained that the wetlands are a little different when it comes to what is required. He explained that the residents' property was likely pushed a little bit into the site in order to meet the buffer for the wetlands. He stated that the ten-foot side yard setback is common in this zoning district. Kate Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, pointed out that a developer bought a nearby lot and wanted to build four homes, but the Wetland Watershed District came back and told him that he could only build one, so he sold the land. Mary Bension, 25670 Maple View Court, asked where the front of the proposed structure is behind her property. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the City Code does not contemplate the orientation of the house. He explained that the City looks strictly at the property line. He pointed out on the map where that would be. He pointed out that when someone dedicates right-of-way to the City, even if a street is not built on it, the setback is measured from that right-of-way. He noted that this does not benefit the developer in any way; it actually pushes the setback farther back into their lot. He stated that in this case, it renders the entire Southeast corner unbuildable. Ms. Benson stated that she is still confused as to what the front is. Chair Huskins pointed out that Planning Director Griffiths had noted on the map and showed that it was consistent with the other properties as well. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the front door of the house, no matter which direction that is, as long as it is in the box that is buildable, that is what the City Code requires. He furthered that the designation of the front, the side, and the rear property line has nothing to do with the home itself; it only has to do with the configuration of the property. He noted that if you take away the proposed Maple View Court bulb, and just use the existing cul-de-sac, that 50-foot yard setback would always be measured from that corner of the property, the side yard would always be the East property line. He noted that many homes across the City of Shorewood are not perfectly centered on their lot. Chair Huskins asked if any questions were noted during the public hearings that Planning Director Griffiths wished to comment on. Planning Director Griffiths noted that at this point in the process of a development, it is not common for a builder to have exact construction plans. He stated that in this case, the builder has noted there are several models that are built for customers, but that is the extent of the City’s review at this point. He added that if a project is approved and the lots are created, the City reviews a building permit as part of a separate application. He pointed out that in the plans, there is a drainage area map which identifies the drainage threshold of the property, and the entirety of the site drains within the site. He sympathized that in the loss of the trees, it can be tough, and there is no way to replace the trees that are being taken, but the City does have a tree preservation policy, and in this case, the maximum replacement required is eight trees per acre, and the Applicant needs to improve their tree preservation plan. He described the process of the escrow and the preservation of the trees and the other conditions that are expected of the developer. He pointed out that it does not prevent a person from ignoring the rules; it does provide a very strong financial incentive to meet the rules because that money is forfeited if the plan is not followed. He noted that a separate tree preservation issue was brought up on an unrelated property, and City Staff is working through remediation with residents and the developer in that unfortunate situation. He pointed out that parking and staging are usually a part of the building permit process, and that City Staff ensures that the parking and staging are taking place in those areas; otherwise, there are consequences. He stated that when looking at impervious surface requirements, the site is partially located within a Shoreland protection zone, so within that area, impervious surface is limited to 25 percent of the total lot area; outside that area, it is 33 percent. He furthered that given the maximum building sites that are on the plan, it would be compliant with the impervious surface requirements. He stated that the comments about the character of the neighborhood is some what taken into consideration in a project like this, but at this point in the project, the Applicant is not asking for any exceptions or variances to the City Code, so the City Code is the benchmark that is used to review projects like this. He stated that the Staff would stand by its recommendation to approve the project, based on its meeting of the rules in the City Code. Commissioner Longo asked if the Watershed were to come back and stated the developer could only build one. Planning Director Griffiths stated that they would only be able to build one. Commissioner Longo asked why the Planning Commission could not just vote on building one lot, and if the Watershed came back with the option of having two, then it could be split. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Watershed District is a separate jurisdiction from the City. He noted that under the State Statute, the Applicant does have the right to have a decision made on their proposal, which involves two lots. He stated that the City does have a condition that the Watershed must also issue a permit. He noted that the Watershed does not typically come back and state that there can be one lot versus two lots, rather their review focuses on whether their own rules are being met or not. He stated that if the Watershed came back with the need to make changes to the plans, then that would be up to the Applicant if they wanted to do it or not. He shared that there is an obligation to decide on the proposal, unless the Applicant wants to modify their plans and then resubmit. Commissioner Longo asked what the deadline is to make a decision. He furthered what if the Commission waited a month to get the decision from the Watershed District. Chair Huskins stated that the proposal would be de facto approved. Planning Director Griffiths stated that there is a requirement in Minnesota State Statute 15.99 that timely action needs to be taken on the applications, and the drop-dead timeline for this project is February 18. He noted that it could be pushed to the February 3 meeting, and push the City Council meeting around a little to just barely meet it, but at this point, this is a very common condition that is attached and does not typically derail a project. He noted that the Watershed District has indicated that there is a path forward for this project. He stated that the Commission could push back, but he would recommend sending a recommendation to the City Council, carrying with it an interest in hearing what the Watershed District will recommend. Commissioner Longo stated that the reason he is asking is that the residents are concerned about the lot lines, the information not being available, and the tree removal not being realistic. He stated that seeing a better plan on how things will be developed seems important. He noted his understanding of the lot being sold means that the City does not have control of some of the things. He stated that he wants to answer the concerns of the residents as much as possible. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is unlikely that an answer will come from the Watershed District in the next four weeks. He noted that if that is the concern, then the recommendation from Staff would be to forward whatever the Commission’s thoughts are to the City Council, with more information needed from the Watershed District. Chair Huskins asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak for the public hearing portion of the application. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, proposed that the Commission consider limiting the project to just one house. Chair Huskins commented that the application in front of the Commission is for two homes, and the Commission is empowered to recommend a denial of the application. He added that it is not in the Commission's power or authority to modify the application substantially. He noted that conditions can be attached to it, but he is not comfortable attaching that, as it would be up to the discretion of the Applicant because they would have to resubmit or amend the one that has already been submitted. Todd Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, noted that a lot of legal advice has been given to the Commission. He stated that there are a lot of open questions about the 120 days, and what basis the Commission can use to approve or deny these applications. He stated it would be a good idea to get legal advice from a lawyer. Planning Director Griffiths stated that before the meeting, he had a conversation with the City Attorney regarding the public notice that was provided and the 60-day rule that was referenced. He noted that legal counsel recommended that the City has been compliant with its process, and how the City has gone about establishing the date. Chair Huskins asked if Planning Director Griffiths has ever experienced a continuation beyond what the State Statute is in terms of responding to an application, what, if anything, might be grounds for doing so. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the City does not have any grounds for extending, unless the developer is willing to voluntarily extend that deadline. Chair Huskins pointed out that Planning Director Griffiths stated that if some new information came forward, the project could be stopped or may create a condition upon which the developer would not feel it feasible to continue the project. He stated that in reflecting upon some of the comments from some of the individuals, there was a need to have some of the complete information, and he would like to see that all of the recommended approvals are approved before the project can go forward. He noted that even if the Commission recommends approval and the City Council approves it, the developer is taking risks that one of the conditions may not be able to be met and could prevent the project from moving forward. He shared that he is sensitive to the comments about the trust in the City being questioned, but that at this point, there is nothing that the Staff or the Commissioners could say to ease the minds of those who do not feel the City deserves the trust. He noted that the Commission can deliberate on the merits of the application, the comprehensiveness of the attached conditions, the recommendation indicating strongly to the City Council that the Commission has thoroughly thought it through and taken into account all of the information that they can, and that the Application complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. He stressed that there is nothing in the application that indicates that there is a violation of any existing City Code. Chair Huskins asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, pointed out that trust is very important. He stated that his concern is with the terms that are used, such as risk, and who takes on the risk. He shared that the only people at risk in this project are not the builder and the developer, but rather the community members and neighbors of Shorewood, and potentially the City. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, stated that it is the Staff’s responsibility to follow the Code, but he assumed that the role of the Commission was to help the citizenry within the review process, not just follow the policies of the City. He voiced that his thought as a Commission was to look at the benefit of the entire City. Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 10:08 P.M. Commissioner Longo stated that he would like to make a proposal to the City Council to defer the decision as more information is gathered. He noted that there needs to be a better tree plan, the residents need to be clear on the property lines, and maybe an answer will come from the Watershed in the next four weeks. Commissioner Magistad noted that there were a lot of moving comments that were made, and he has a great deal of empathy for the situation that the neighbors face. He stated that if the application could be rejected based on public opposition and aesthetic objections, that may be something to contemplate. He stated that, as he understands the role, and having rejected something based on public opposition before, the Commission’s hands are tied. He shared that the City Council is going to struggle with some of the same things that the Commission is struggling with, but will ultimately be in the same position. He explained that if the developer adheres to their tree preservation plan, fixes it, there is escrow, setbacks are compliant, the Watershed District approves the plan, and the project follows the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, then there is no ground to reject the application. Chair Huskins asked Planning Director Griffiths to review if the Commission were to take a pause and take it up at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting, what the consequences might be. He stated that he understands it would need to be very specific as to why the Commission has made that decision. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Planning Commission could table until the next meeting. He added that it is not typical of something that the Planning Commission does, as it stops the process with respect to the 60-day rule. He noted that there is a City Council meeting scheduled for February 9, where it would be reviewed, which would give additional time to get some of the information pulled together. He shared that it would mean that the Commission does not get to look at it again, but the City Council would have the benefit of more information. He recommended that if there are specific concerns about specific items that are needed, then as part of the recommendation to the City Council, that would be included. He gave an example of it, the Commission is looking for a better tree plan, then that would be something to note in the motion to the City Council. He stated that it would avoid issues with the 60-day rule and allow the City Council the opportunity to conduct its review of the application, but ultimately the decision rested with the Commission and staff will support its decision. Chair Huskins asked if there would be a Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, typically, the City Council does not hold a Public Hearing on recommendations from the Planning Commission. He stated that, in what he is hearing, the Commission’s concerns would not alter the boundaries of the property, or the proposed layout; rather, they are more technical requirements in order to meet City Code. He stated that the City Council will get the minutes from the meeting and receive all of the information from the Public Hearing side of things. Chair Huskins stated that though there will not be a Public Hearing that does not preclude anyone from communicating with the City Council in advance of the meeting. Planning Director Griffiths added that comments can be made to Staff and will be shared with the Council. He expects that the Applicant will also be making revisions to their plans based on what has been heard. Chair Huskins stated that there was a resident who was looking into providing more information about a tree being on their property, and if that information comes to light, it can be shared with the Staff to be included. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the process does not stop with this meeting, and that he would share any resident feedback he receives after the public hearing is closed with the City Council. Chair Huskins noted that Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Applicant was in attendance and heard the testimony, which may lead to the Applicant altering the application. This does not mean that the Applicant is free and clear to change things, even if the Planning Commission has sent a recommendation based on the application before the Commission. He furthered that the Commission is there to not break trust, but rather help the City to operate under the rules and regulations that it states it will operate under. Chair Huskins asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Magistad asked what the Commission was going to motion to do. Commissioner Longo moved, Magistad seconded, recommending to defer a decision on the approval for the Watten Ponds Second Addition Preliminary and Final Plat to the next February 3 Planning Commission meeting, pending more information concerning the land survey, the tree preservation plan, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review. Chair Huskins asked when the meeting would be deferred to. Commissioner Longo stated that the next meeting will be in February. Chair Huskins asked where the next meeting falls. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it could be done before the Council meeting, as the Planning Commission is meeting on February 3 and the City Council meeting falls on February 9. He stated that it is an option. Commissioner Magistad asked if that implies another public hearing. Planning Director Griffiths stated that typically it does not, as the Planning Commission has opened and closed the Public Hearing already. He stated that is why his recommendation was to make whatever recommendation the Commission is going to make and request that the City Council look at that information, because those are things that are already conditions from Staff and not things that would significantly alter the plans. He shared that based on the Commission’s motion there would be no public hearing at that meeting, and it would be no different than just forwarding it to the City Council. Commissioner Magistad stated that the public could still speak during the Matters from the Floor portion of the City Council meeting. Chair Huskins asked if Commissioner Longo would like to restate his motion. Commissioner Longo stated that he is torn. Chair Huskins stated that he would make a motion. Planning Director Griffiths stated that procedurally a motion has already been made and seconded and will need to be voted on first. Motion passed 2/1 (Huskins voted nay). Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the motion that just passed was to table this item to the February 3, 2026, Planning Commission meeting for review. He confirmed that it will not be a public hearing. He asked Commission Longo to clarify what he wanted better information on. Commissioner Longo asked for better information on the land survey, so that citizens are very comfortable with where the border is going to be, what trees will be cut, and, if received, the Watershed District recommendation. Planning Director Griffiths confirmed that the item has been tabled, with the information that is needed at the February 3 meeting being a better tree plan, the accurate lot lines to make sure it is up to date, and the decision of the Watershed District, if received. Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 10:21 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:31 P.M. OTHER BUSINESS – A. Discuss Planning Commission Bylaws and Code Updates Planning Director Griffiths presented that the City has been trying to get bylaws in place for those on the Commissions, Council, and residents as well, so what is expected of everyone is clear. He stated that late last year, the City Council adopted bylaws, and the Staff would be drafting something similar for the Commissions to get the procedures on paper. He asked that the Commission provide feedback on where more guidance is needed, which can be done via email as well. He noted that the Staff’s goal is to have the bylaws in place by February, before the new Commissioners are appointed. He stated that one thing that needs feedback on is the commissioner report process at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Longo pointed out that the Council Liaison was not present at the meeting and rarely has been. Planning Director Griffiths stated that there are options on how this process could be revised. He noted that other cities just have the minutes forwarded to the City Council, and that would be his recommendation. He added that the arrangement of a Planning Commissioner attending a Council meeting and giving a formal presentation to the City Council is not common in other cities. Commissioner Longo noted that he would be open to not going to the Council meeting if one of the Councilmembers attends the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Huskins stated that minutes are great, but not the same thing as providing context. He added that one time he was able to provide further context to his nay vote. Commissioner Magistad stated that usually, he feels that he is only adding value if he is editorializing a little bit or adding context. Chair Huskins recommended that the Commission should attend, but not do a presentation, the Planning Director present, and then state that a Commissioner is present if there is anything that they wish to add, which could be nothing if desired. Commissioners agreed with the idea of Chair Huskins. Planning Director Griffiths stated that staff can draft bylaws based on this direction. Chair Huskins pointed out that the definitions in the Packet about what the Planning Commission is will stay the same because of State Statutes. He stated that the bylaws are how the meetings will be run, and there is no public hearing procedure written down, so in doing so, it provides the context to everyone. Chair Huskins stated that the City Council bylaws read like a Code of Conduct. He shared that it could be totally applicable to the bylaws for the Commission. Planning Director Griffiths agreed that a lot of time was spent by Council in putting it together, and the policies should be consistent, so most of it will be the same for the Planning Commission. Chair Huskins noted that for some meetings, it would be nice to have some of the other Staff present, such as the Engineer or Attorney to be an authoritative person for a specific matter. Commissioner Magistad stated that if there were matters where there could be a potential incendiary public hearing, it might be a good idea. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he hears what the Commissioners are saying and that it may be needed at times, or to get a memo as another option, because it may not be feasible to have them at the meeting. Chair Huskins asked what an appropriate mechanism would be to approach an applicant seeking an extension beyond the 60-day rule. Planning Director Griffiths noted that he would have to ask the applicant, and the applicant would have to agree to it. He stated that he has never had an applicant decide to do that in his experience as a planner, because there is no benefit to the applicant. Chair Huskins asked if it would be appropriate to within a meeting, ask the applicant to extend beyond the 60 days, given the information that was presented tonight. Planning Director Griffiths noted that he did not feel it would be an appropriate setting for the Planning Commission to have that conversation with the developer. He pointed out that the courts have a very strict interpretation of that State law regarding the 60-day rule. Chair Huskins asked in the project that was presented to the Commission that night, if the time runs out, then all of the conditions and the public testimony are thrown out. Planning Director Griffiths stated that whatever has been submitted is approved. He stated that this is why he is so cognizant of that deadline, because if it is missed, the ability to deny a project is lost, but also approve the project with conditions. He explained that while not typical of this Commission, in this case, there is time for the City to complete its review and still meet the 60-day rule. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Commission has stated that they would still like to go to the Council meetings and be in attendance. He added that he will draft the bylaws and shift the language to represent it in such a way that the Commission has asked. Chair Huskins asked if the draft minutes would still be sent to whichever Commissioner is to attend ahead of time. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the same procedure would take place and the Commissioners would receive the draft minutes. REPORTS Liaison to Council Planning Director Griffiths reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s recent meetings. Staff Planning Director Griffiths thanked Commissioners Longo and Magistad for doing the interviews for the Comprehensive Plan consultant. He noted that a consensus was reached as to who to hire as a contractor, and the staff will be working to get a contract together and will hopefully be approved by the Council in late January or early February. Chair Huskins asked what budget there is for the selected vendor. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the average Comprehensive Plan update costs about $200,000, and can confidently state the City will be under that amount. He noted that there is an approved budget for 2026 of $100,000. He noted that the Planning Department will tailor their 2027 budget based on what is needed for the project in future years. Planning Director Griffiths asked for a Council liaison for the January 26 meeting to talk about the Conditional Use Permit that was presented. Commissioner Magistad noted he could attend. Commission No additional comments were given by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Longo moved, Magistad seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 6, 2026, at 10:56 P.M. Motion passed 3/0.