Loading...
02-04-26 Planning Comm Mtg MinutesCITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 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 Holker, Longo, and Magistad; Planning Director Griffiths; City Attorney Shepherd; Planner Osowski; and Council Liaison Maddy Absent: None Chair Huskins explained that the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Longo seconded, approving the agenda for February 4, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 6, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes Chair Huskins noted that he 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 January 6, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Jeff Marshall, 911 Iris Circle, stated that he owns the property that abuts the proposed property at Watten Ponds. He asked about the second property and if the perimeter that is seen ten feet off the lot line is the potential footprint of the house itself. He pointed out that the backyard of the property would be ten feet before the property ends. He noted that it does not make sense, and if there were a way to prevent people from building things that do not make sense. He stated that the number of trees that are to be removed, and their size, seems gratuitous to be removing that much of nature just to build two houses. He noted that he would recommend the application be denied. Mark Harland, 5300 Eureka Road, stated that he bought his house in 1985 and has heard many stories about people who have played in the woods of the potential Watten Ponds development. He described the original Watten Ponds development as potentially having 28 homes, and the neighborhood was opposed to that, so it was reduced. He described how important the name of Shorewood is and the image that the name invokes, and should be protected. He added that the woods are the last of that kind in the area, and this is where the animals go to get water and be protected. He noted that the City has an opportunity to preserve a wooded area. He proposes that the City buy the area so that it is preserved for generations to come. Todd Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, stated that he would start by talking about the role of the Commission. He noted that it should be more than checking the work of the Planning Department. He described the Commission as being the only people in the entire process who actually live in Shorewood. He added that the Commission and the Council speak for everyone in the City, in a process where the residents have nobody else. He noted that the Commission is made up of regular people, not experts. He stated that the Commission has three options: approve, deny, or deny as premature, which has only been around since July. He described what denial as premature means and recommended that, if the Commission has any doubts, it should deny as premature. He stated that the Commission does not have to prove the application is noncompliant, but the Applicant has to convince the Commission that it is compliant, which is the legal requirement. He noted that if the Commission is not satisfied, even if the Planning Department is satisfied, they can still deny it as premature. He referenced section 1202.20 subdivision 25, which states a project is premature if there is a lack of adequate drainage, which shall be deemed to exist if, among other things, the surface or subsurface water retention and runoff is such that it constitutes a danger to the structural security of the proposed structure and or the adjacent properties. He added that the code states that the Commission must affirmatively make the determination, based on the Planning Department and all other factors. He stated that the environmental regulations of stormwater and wetland management are not just about protecting plankton, but rather the regulations exist to protect the residents. He added that if the development is not done right, then the neighborhood will flood, and by enforcing the rules, it is not limiting the developer but protecting the residents. He noted that the Applicant stated that the models say everything is okay, but models are just guesswork. He quoted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: water control models are not exact simulations of the processes occurring in nature, recognizing the high degree of error or uncertainty inherent in many aspects of stormwater modeling could help to focus efforts where they do the most good. Generally, the goal of stormwater modeling is to provide a reasonable prediction of the way a system will respond. He stated that reasonable prediction means being skeptical of their models, which is why the Commission is there. He continued to describe the modeling and how it is used. He noted that it comes down to credibility and common sense, and described how the Applicant lacks both. Janene Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, stated that her comments are meant to supplement the prior speaker and also the Attorney who sent a letter to the City, who is representing herself and others on Maple View Court. She stated that the subdivision code needs to be mandatorily applied, but compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan should also be considered when making the decision. She quoted the City Code 1202.20 subdivision 1C1, which requires the City to deny a subdivision application as premature when it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She continued that the ordinance states that a subdivision must be denied when the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the purposes, objectives, and recommendations of the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan of Shorewood. She added that City Code 1202.6 subdivision 2B provides that it is the policy of the City that the enforcement and administration of the subdivision code must be carried out with due consideration of the direction contained in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Commission must make sure that the Applicant is following the Comprehensive Plan requirements and guidance. She noted that the proposal that the Applicant put forth is inconsistent with multiple policies in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She gave an example of the Natural Resource Policies, Policy Six new developments shall be restricted where environmental damage will result, Policy Seven development on or near shorelands, wetlands plains, and other natural features shall be restricted or prohibited, Policy Eight natural drainage patterns shall be preserved where feasible, Policies Twelve and Thirteen environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved through public control, conservation easements, and permanent open space protections. She gave examples of how the Applicant was not compliant. She added that City Coded 1202.20 expressly authorizes the denial of subdivision applications that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that Minnesota Case Law supports denial where proposals conflict with adopted comprehensive plans and threaten neighborhood character or public welfare. She stated that because the Applicant has not met his burden and the proposal is inconsistent with Shorewood’s Comprehensive Plan, it requires denial of the application as premature. Lou Harland, 5300 Eureka Road, stated that she is against the development due to all the wildlife on the property. She added that it would lower her property value by adding the development. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, stated that he spoke at the last meeting because he did not feel the narrative was correct. He noted that he is appreciative of what the Commission has done. He noted that the Commission is part of the residents. He stated that the employees of Shorewood are not necessarily doing anything wrong, but are not the ones who live in the community. He shared that his questions have grown since the last meeting. He added that the development seems to be a phased approach that goes beyond the property, and would classify things differently. He asked that the Commission take extra care in considering whether to approve or deny the request. He noted that the development would bring additional safety requirements and access requirements to adhere to the Fire Standards that were adopted. He noted that the driveway is being used in compliance with the safety requirements and that the driveway lengths seem to be off. He stated that the standards under the Shorewood regulatory framework require that the minimum width of a residential driveway over 150 feet in length must maintain an unobstructed width of 12 feet. He noted that setbacks for driveways are considered structures, so generally not allowed in the wet setbacks without a variance. He added that for this project, a 35-foot wetland buffer is strictly enforced, so driveways must be positioned outside of the corridor. He added that he is not an expert, but there does not seem to be enough room on the property. He stated that there are a lot of questions about the development that continue to be raised. Mary Benson, 25670 Maple View Court, shared a map of her property and the property that is being proposed and pointed out many pieces of the proposed plan, including easement, driveways, and tree removal. She stated she would speak to Lot One, which is ten feet from her property line. She explained that the easement was created to make something not buildable, buildable. She stated that Lot One cannot exist unless the easement right-of-way is created. She stated that the driveway width narrows to about 103 to 105 feet, and when the 50-foot setbacks are considered, it leaves three feet to accommodate the driveway. She asked how it is allowable, especially when it comes to the turnaround for a fire apparatus. She shared that the plan for building two homes on the property proposes destroying at least half of the significant trees and the inevitable collateral damage to nearby trees. She asked if this is part of Shorewood’s vision to value and maintain the natural environment, as stated repeatedly in the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the proposal can be denied on the numerous grounds that have been presented to the Commission. She added that an arborist stated that the property should be treated as the gem it is for so many reasons. She urged the Commission to vote no on the two-lot proposal. Jim Benson, 25670 Maple View Court, stated that he is frustrated with the whole process. He noted that he trusted that the local government was in place to protect the tax-paying residents. He noted that from the beginning, the scales have been tipped in favor of the Applicant. He shared that he is concerned that there has been no real discussion on the impervious surface restrictions that need to be complied with. He stated that when the wetlands are excluded from lot size calculations, there is no way that the 25 percent barrier can be satisfied. He stated that if the Applicant is to be approved, then it could submit for a variance based on the impervious surface issue. He added that the additional impervious surface would create a significant risk through erosion and flooding, and would be very detrimental to the entire ecosystem. He stated that the wetland on Lot One already rises onto his property, and that with more impervious surfaces, it would cause more flooding. He noted that this needs to be thoroughly addressed before there is consideration for approval. He feels the City has not been fully transparent, in that there appears to be more than just the two lots. He noted that the addition of more homes would have a dramatic impact on the entire ecosystem and the whole neighborhood. He stated that the applicant needs to be examined in totality. He noted the easement that was created so that the side of a lot can be the front of the lot. He asked if what is being done is right, even if it is legal. Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, shared about the emergency vehicle access, including turnarounds. He noted that the driveway length is at least 200 feet. He shared that generally understood definitions for a driveway or access road are as follows: the distinction between an access road and a driveway for emergency vehicle access is primarily defined by the number of properties served. He stated that a fire access road typically serves more than one property or structure, whereas a driveway only serves a single property. He noted that by that definition, the road is an access road. He shared that an access road must have an unobstructed width of at least 20 feet. He noted that dead-end access roads, exceeding 150 feet, require approved turnaround space, which has not been noted on the plats. He shared that the driveway does not meet requirements as it would need to be at least 12 feet in width for the entire length. He noted that whether the road is an access road or a driveway, it does not meet the requirements. He shared that the other issue is that in none of the plans has the handling of construction parking and staging been shared. Mark Harland, 5300 Eureka Road, stated that the road that will be created on the property will destroy a white pine. He noted that the developer may run into a lot of legal trouble and decide it is not worth his time. He added that a proposal should be put together to buy the property from the developer and to save the land for the City. Todd Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, noted that some of the residents spoke about the higher regulatory standards if the development were to be three or more lots. He added that under the Minnehaha Watershed District, if it is three or more lots, there are substantially stricter requirements in place. He added that the stormwater management rules would be applied if there were three or more lots, but the rules do not apply to just the two lots. He shared that with more properties, this would increase the impervious surface area, and a sanitary sewer treatment facility would be required. He stated that this could lead to another Strawberry Lane in a few years, with all the flooding and piecemeal work. He asked that the developer be honest if it is going to be more properties and do the development correctly. PUBLIC HEARINGS – NONE OTHER BUSINESS Watten Ponds Second Addition Preliminary and Final Plat Chair Huskins asked Planning Director Griffiths to address any of the questions or comments that were raised during the Matters from the Floor portion of the meeting. Planning Director Griffiths presented on the Preliminary and Final Plat as found in the Staff Report. He did address many of the concerns and questions from the residents, as found in the presentation. He noted that the application was submitted to the Fire Department, but there were no comments received about the project. Chair Huskins asked if that was normal to not receive any comments. Planning Director Griffiths noted that for a project of this size, it was normal, and the City could reach back out to the Fire Department if needed. He continued with the presentation. He shared that the Commission asked for three additional pieces of information: an updated tree preservation plan, an updated land survey, and the decision from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He noted that the tree plan was in the Staff Report for review. He added that the decision from the Watershed District had not been received. Chair Huskins asked about how, from a timing standpoint, the Watershed District’s decision impacts the City’s decision. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the City has to make a decision based on its rules, and with any project in the City, a condition is put in that states approval has to come from the Watershed District; otherwise, the project cannot move forward, and the plat will not be recorded. Chair Huskins asked if there could be anything else besides the Watershed District decision that could cause the project to be null and void after the City had approved the project. Planning Director Griffiths noted that there are other conditions that could cause the project to be stopped, but the Watershed District decision is the main condition. He stated that the project is being looked at conceptually right now, and then when the building permit comes in, the Applicant would have to go through the whole process again, and if something fails during that process, then it would have to be fixed. Chair Huskins asked about the Fire District, and if no recommendation was made, or if the City just did not hear back from them. Planning Director Griffiths noted that it is fairly typical of this size project to not hear from the Fire District. Planning Director Griffiths continued with the presentation, focusing on the tree preservation plan. He added that the Staff review is based on the minimum requirements in the City Code, as it was adopted that day. He noted that Minnesota State Statute 462.358 does require that, in situations where the municipality finds that the proposal meets the rules, it should approve the request. He stated that the Staff’s findings with conditions, if the conditions are met, then the project does meet the minimums and therefore the Staff is recommending approval with the conditions. He shared the conditions that need to be met before the plat can be made. He described how the project would move forward from there. He stated that a recommendation needs to be made so the City Council has time to make a final decision before time runs out on the application. Commissioner Magistad asked if the City is facing any legal challenges if the Commission or the City Council approves of the project. City Attorney Shepherd shared that any time the City makes a land use decision, it can be subject to a lawsuit from the applicant or the neighbors. He noted that if the City Council grants or denies the application, there is no guarantee that there will not be a lawsuit. Commissioner Holker asked about the premature nature of the application and if the City Attorney had more information on that. City Attorney Shepherd stated that the provision is common in subdivision ordinances. He noted that it is applied most in access to City surfaces and roads. He stated that the question of whether the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the codes that fall under that are operational, and what will be applied to the application. Chair Huskins asked if there is anything that suggests that the application is premature. City Attorney Shepherd stated that ultimately, that is a decision that the Planning Commission and the City Council have to make. He noted that from his perspective, there is a complete application in front of the Commission, and then the Commission needs to apply the application to the Code. Planning Director Griffiths added that the City Code does have clear standards for when an application is premature. He stated that when something is premature, the Commission would be looking for a key ingredient that is not there, such as there are no roads to serve the project, or no City water or sewer. He stated that the City Code does state that if there is a lack of adequate drainage, then an application can be premature, but based on the City Engineer’s review of the drainage, that requirement is being met. Chair Huskins stated that, based on the comments from residents, the project width of the roads is insufficient to support a fire truck. He asked if the lack of information from the Fire District is part of the premature nature of the application. He added that without the information, he is not sure what to do with the comments from the residents. Planning Director Griffiths stated that when looking at whether an application is premature, the Commission is looking for a key ingredient to the actual land that is being created. He noted that with this application, the discussion is about creating two pieces of property, and the design of the driveway would not make the application premature because there is conceivably a way to meet the requirements if the plan is modified. He stated that the Commission could add a condition to the decision that asks for the information from the Fire District. Chair Huskins noted that he is hearing that there is no room in the buildable area for a driveway. He asked if, at this point, this knowledge needs to be known, or if it could be a condition of the approval that a driveway be able to fit in the buildable space. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is in the purview of the Commission to add a condition that states the applicant shall be consistent with the requirements of the State Fire Code. Commissioner Longo asked if the Commission would vote to split the lot into two parts, and if the Watershed District and the Fire District come back with a negative answer, then there may just be one home that is built on the property. He noted that the Commission is only voting on splitting the lot. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is correct; if the Watershed District comes back and says no, then the application is done. He noted that to build one home on the lot, the process would have to be started over again. Commissioner Longo asked that once the property is split into two, then the Applicant could sell off the lot as they pleased. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is correct. Commissioner Magistad asked what the consequences are if the Commission denies as premature or recommends that to the Council. City Attorney Shepherd stated that the Commission is a recommending body, so the Council can follow through on that decision or make its own decision based on what it hears. He shared that if the Council does agree with the Commission, then many residents may be happy, but the Applicant may challenge the decision. He shared that the Applicant could take it to court, and it would be a lawsuit challenging the decision of the City, and the judge would make a decision based on all the findings. Commissioner Magistad asked if there is a reasonable case to be made that the project is premature based on the lack of Fire and Watershed District information. City Attorney Shepherd stated that Fire Code issue is more of a building code issue and not something that is contemplated with the issue of being premature. He stated that with respect to the Watershed District, they are a separate body, and as long as there is a condition that approval needs to be had from the Watershed District, then it is covered. Commissioner Magistad stated that there is a risk with either decision that is made. City Attorney Shepherd noted that it would be foolish to assume otherwise, and the reality of land use cases. He noted that the Commission should focus on what the right decision is, not what the outcome of the decision would be. Chair Huskins asked about the wetlands and what is known about them based on the fact that wetlands could be sponges or the water can expand out. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the Applicant provided a full wetland delineation in addition to drainage modeling of the site. Both were reviewed by the City and meet the City's requirements. Chair Huskins noted that it is not before the Commission, but asked about the aspect of a potential expansion of the land that the Applicant owns. He noted that there would be some conditions that would force the utilities to move from the current proposed subdivision to the other properties because the utilities could not be accessed. Planning Director Griffiths stated that this was correct, and as part of the first review, the infrastructure on Birch Bluff Road is not sufficient to support additional infrastructure. He added that the City’s comment to the Applicant was to consider how they would service the other projects. He shared that the developer stated they were not planning to extend the project, and therefore, not extending the roads or the utilities as part of this project. He noted that it is the developer's risk. He shared that the utilities are present there for the subdivision project and the property on Birch Bluff Road. Chair Huskins asked if the property on Birch Bluff Road could be subdivided. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it could not be. He noted that there would need to be some kind of application if the developer ever wanted to develop the other properties. He shared that, based on the utility constraints, developing the other properties might not even be possible. Commissioner Longo asked if there is any case where the developer could change their mind and state they want to develop the land. Planning Director Griffiths stated that anybody can apply for anything at any time. He noted that everything the City has been told by the developer is that they do not have plans for the other two properties. Chair Huskins asked about the vacancy of an unapproved road. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Applicant had looked into vacating Second Street, but the request was withdrawn. He shared that the rationale was that Second Street is an unplatted road, and the DNR typically likes to preserve access to the wetland area, and based on the feedback, the Applicant withdrew that part of the application. Commissioner Holker asked if Clara Avenue is on the North side of the property. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is a paper road, it is a right-of-way that was platted when the original neighborhood was platted in the late 1800s. He shared that it is common in Shorewood that the person who did the original plat probably did not set foot on the land, and the road goes through wetlands and such, which would preclude it from being built. He noted that it would probably never be able to build a road on Clara or Second Street. Chair Huskins asked if it were to be vacated what happens to the property. Planning Director Griffiths noted that it was outside the scope of this request. He described that if vacated, the adjoining land collapses onto it. He shared that in looking at the center line of the right-of-way, all of the property lines would shift to encompass the right-of-way. Chair Huskins stated that the property owner would enjoy the benefit of the property that is landlocked. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the applicant could. He noted it would be a separate application and the purview of the Applicant. He shared that other neighbors in the area could petition Clara Avenue, and that process could be started on their own. He noted that he did speak with one resident in this area, who was potentially looking at vacating Clara Avenue. Chair Huskins asked if there would be a stricter review if the development were three or more lots per one of the residents. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is the Watershed District's requirement, not the City’s requirement. Chair Huskins asked if Planning Director Griffiths is familiar with what the requirements would be from the Watershed District. Planning Director Griffiths shared that he has met with the Watershed District to get more information on that, and that much of it is not in his understanding, as he is not an engineer. He added that it involves additional buffers, additional drainage review, and how the Watershed District handles it is up to them. Commissioner Magistad stated that there are a couple of important gaps that have not been brought to a close. He noted those gaps pertain to something like stormwater management, erosion, and the sensitivity of the wetlands. He shared that he thinks it contravenes the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, so he did not think he could recommend approval. Commissioner Holker asked if the Applicant had provided all the requirements for stormwater. Planning Director Griffiths stated they had. Commissioner Holker stated that she looks at whether the Commission is treating this Applicant like any other applicant. She noted that it is hard to say there is too much uncertainty if that has never been used as a criterion before. She added that when the houses that are there now were built, it had a dramatic impact on the land. She shared that people own the property and they have the right to develop it. She stated that if they were not meeting code, then it would be a problem. She shared that the conditions for the Fire code and the Watershed District are important, but all other requirements being met are important as well. She noted that she would recommend approval subject to the conditions. Commissioner Longo stated that the Commission gave the Applicant some homework to do at the last meeting, which was done. He noted that there is some information that is still pending, but all need to be treated the same. He shared that the Commission is only deciding on the splitting of lots, and pending all the requirements, his thought is to approve, subject to the conditions. Chair Huskins noted he feels similar to Commissioner Longo. He noted that the conditions that have been appended to the application and further information from the Fire District would make him feel better about approving the application pending the information. Planning Director Griffiths stated that, based on the desire, if a motion were made, the Watershed District is already in the conditions, and the Staff would ask that the Commission clarify that they are asking for additional information from the Fire District. Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Longo seconded, recommending approval of the Watten Ponds Second Addition Preliminary and Final Plat subject to the existing Staff recommendations and the additional condition that there is approval from the Fire Department. Motion passed 3/1 (Magistad). Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 8:49 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:54 P.M. Planning Commission Bylaws Planner Osowski presented the draft of the Commission bylaws as presented in the Agenda Packet. He noted that the bylaws are similar to the City Council bylaws. He shared that there were no changes to how the meeting codifies. Planning Director Griffiths stated that on the next City Council agenda, there will be some discussion on how Matters from the Floor will operate in the Council meeting. He shared that how it operates may change a little, and the same could be true of the Planning Commission meetings in the future. Chair Huskins noted that in the bylaws, it should be stated that the bylaws could be changed at any point, not just annually. Planning Director Griffiths stated that language could be added that states that if the City Council changes its bylaws, then the Commission will change its as well. The Commission agreed that it should be consistent with the City Council. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, based on the last meeting, there is language included in the bylaws about the presentation to the Council. He stated that there will no longer be a presentation from a Commissioner and that a Commissioner will attend the Council meetings if there are any questions that the Council will have. He shared that it is the language in the bylaws and will be dependent upon whether the Council is comfortable with that. Chair Huskins stated that the spirit of that change was to be efficient in the use of the Council’s time, but recognizing that if the Commissioners were not there, then the Council would have the benefit of the minutes without context. Commissioner Magistad asked if, without the presentation from the Commission, there are greater mysteries and more questions that may be had from the Council. Chair Huskins stated that if a Commissioner felt the need to say something during the Council meeting, then it could be allowed. Planning Director Griffiths stated that during the Staff presentation, it could be stated that the Commissioner is there if there are further questions. Chair Huskins asked Council Liaison Maddy if it had come up before at Council about Commissions presenting. Council Liaison Maddy noted that there is a balance between getting to know the Commissioners and having follow-up questions, and also wasting the time of the Commissioners, because there is rarely a follow-up question. He shared that he does not know what the preference of the Council would be. Chair Huskins shared that the Commission agreed that it was worth their time to attend the meetings, but in fairness to both the Council and the Commission, there would not necessarily be a presentation done by the Commissioners in addition to the Staff report. Commissioner Holker stated that asking the Commissioners who are in attendance if they have anything to add is a great idea as well. Council Liaison Maddy noted that it would have to go on the Mayor’s to-do list, but that would be a good way to go about doing it. Planning Director Griffiths noted that if the Commission has a recommendation to the Council, then a Commissioner will be designated to go, and which Commissioner attends will be rotated. Planning Director Griffiths noted that Staff will, based on feedback, rewrite a few parts of the bylaws and then bring them before the Commission again. He stated that if there was anything else that the Commission wanted to see changed, email those changes to him. He added that the new member would also be part of the Commission at the next meeting as well. Commissioner Longo asked that when the new member comes, there is time in the agenda to talk about where each Commissioner comes from, because the Commission cannot meet outside of the meeting with a quorum of three. Chair Huskins noted doing an introduction. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it could be added to the March meeting agenda. The Commission agreed to have an introduction on the March agenda. Commissioner Holker asked about what changes may be coming to the Matters from the Floor. Council Liaison Maddy shared that there is always a lively debate about how long should be allowed, what should be allowed, if there should still be a public debate, and the Zoom portion of the meeting being taken advantage of. Chair Huskins stated that a way it could be done for Zoom would be to register in advance and then only give the Zoom information to those who registered in advance. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the City Administration wanted to acknowledge that there was a tough meeting with Matters from the Floor and felt that a discussion should be had. He noted that there are a lot of options for Matters from the Floor. Chair Huskins asked about proofreading the Planning Commission meeting minutes and if it is something that he should continue to do, or if the typos are not as important to the Council. Council Liaison Maddy stated that personally, typos are going to happen, but the gist of what happened in the meeting is still coming through. He stated that there have always been typos when he has been doing City work, but the typos have never changed the gist of what is being discussed. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the Staff does check the votes and the motions that are made so they are correct. He shared that the minutes are the Commission's minutes and that if anyone has comments, they can be sent to him to update. Chair Huskins asked if the Commission thinks it adds value to edit the minutes. The rest of the Commissioners noted that as long as the gist is there, they are fine with the state of the minutes. Planning Director Griffiths stated the minutes are the Commission's and he is happy to update them as the Commissioners find necessary. He clarified that if there are substantial changes, those need to be brought up during the meeting. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the bylaws would be updated based on the discussion and brought back to the March meeting. Chair Huskins noted that he would not be at the March meeting. He asked if it would be appropriate to send feedback prior to the meeting. Planning Director Griffiths shared that if any Commissioner has feedback, it can be sent to him. REPORTS City Council Council Liaison Maddy gave a brief overview of recent Council discussions and decisions. The Commission discussed the Highway 7 projects and the ICE information that was discussed at Council. Staff Planning Director Griffiths asked for a Commissioner to attend the Council meeting on February 9. He pointed out that there would be no changes to how the presentation takes place yet, so the Commissioners would still have to present, and there would be no meeting minutes, as there is not enough time for the turnaround. Chair Huskins noted that he could attend the meeting. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the City has been working with the consultant to update the City Zoning Code, and the first draft would be available late spring or early summer for the Commission to review. He noted that there is a lot of excitement about making the Code more user-friendly. He shared that the contract for the Comprehensive Plan update is on the next Council agenda, so hopefully that will be approved, and the project will get started. He noted that the next meeting will be the organizational meeting for the year, which will include the work plan for the year, and space will be saved to respond to any potential legislative changes that may come from the State level. Chair Huskins asked if there is carry-over from last year at the legislative level concerning the State taking over local decisions about land use. Planning Director Griffiths noted that it is correct. He shared that the authors of the bill are going to try again. Commissioner Magistad asked if that would negate a Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Griffiths stated it would not. He shared that a Comprehensive Plan would still be done, but would be forced to do certain things. He noted that he could not speak to certain things yet, as it is mostly just hearsay at this point. He shared that he would send an email with an update about the information that comes out as it gets introduced. He shared that a concept plan would also be on the agenda for the next meeting, along with a public hearing. Commission Chair Huskins noted that he will be absent from the March meeting. He noted that if he were to be nominated for one of the positions, he would accept. Planning Director Griffiths shared that Commissioner Holker would chair the March meeting as the Vice-Chair. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 4, 2026, at 9:50 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.