Loading...
06-02-26 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 2, 2026 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HUSKINS _____ COMMISSIONER HOLKER _____ COMMISSIONER LONGO _____ COMMISSIONER MAGISTAD _____ COMMISSIONER BRAITHWAITE _____ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A) 05-05-26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring a matter related to the governance of the City of Shorewood to the attention of the Planning Commission. If the matter relates to a topic that is identified on tonight’s agenda as a public hearing, please hold your comments until the public hearing is opened. The full rules for this forum can be found on the agenda table in back and on the City’s webpage. Anyone wishing to address the Commission should raise their hand. Please make your comments from the podium and identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. Please limit your comments to five minutes. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) 5850 Boulder Bridge LN Conditional Use Permit (CUP) B) 6145 Club Valley Rd Variance C) 23120 Summit Ave Variance 5. OTHER BUSINESS A) Planning Commission Photo 6. REPORTS A) City Council B) Staff Page 1 of 55 C) Commission 7. ADJOURN Page 2 of 55 Planning Commission Item 2.A. Title/Subject: 05-05-26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: June 2, 2026 Prepared By: Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant Attachments 1. PC 05-05-2026 Background Draft minutes from the May 5, 2026, Planning Commission meeting are attached. Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to approve the May 5, 2026, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Page 3 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2026 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Longo, Magistad, and Braithwaite; Planning Director Griffiths; Planner Osowski; and Council Liaison Maddy Absent: Commissioner Holker 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Magistad moved, Longo seconded, approving the agenda for May 5, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 7, 2026 Planning Commissioner Meeting Minutes Chair Huskins stated that before the meeting, he found and submitted errors to the Staff. Longo moved, Braithwaite seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Brad Rosenberger, 19722 Waterford Court, stated that he was at the meeting to find out information about the development of Highway 7. He noted that the last information he had, the stoplights at Old Market Road would be eliminated, and an exit going East onto Old Market Road, and an exit going East onto Highway 7 from Old Market Road, and no left-hand turns there. He asked if that was still the case and noted that the development is still a couple of years off. Planning Director Griffiths shared that there could be more conversation outside the meeting, but MnDOT has approved no official design at this point, and the project is largely unfunded. He shared that the City Engineer and the MnDOT rep would have the most up-to-date information, and he could put Mr. Rosenberger in contact with them. Mr. Rosenberger shared that his only concern is that if the last plan seen is the final plan, a lot of traffic would be going onto Radisson Road, the service road on the north side of Christmas Lake. The road is not designed to handle many cars passing because it is very narrow in places. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUBLIC HEARING – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT PLAN Applicant: Merle Steinkraus Location: 25485 State Highway 7 Page 4 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 2 of 13 Chair Huskins stated that this evening, the Planning Commission would consider a planned unit development concept plan for 25485 State Highway 7. Planner Osowski reviewed the request for a PUD as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Huskins asked Planner Osowski to point out what the front, rear, and side are to determine the setbacks. Planner Osowski stated the front of the building is on Eureka Road, with the side along Highway 7. Chair Huskins asked if the distance to the property line conforms to the setbacks. Planner Osowski shared that it does conform to the zoning standards that are being requested. Chair Huskins pointed out that it is a major unknown, but there is a possibility that MnDOT could need more right-of-way than is being suggested in the application. Planner Osowski noted a potential, but in MnDOT’s review letter on the application, they did not state it as a concern. Chair Huskins asked if it is fair to state that there is a risk. Planner Osowski shared that it could potentially be a risk given that it is unknown what MnDOT is doing specifically with the intersection, if anything. Chair Huskins stated that it would not be unrealistic to assume that, if approved, the development would be underway or completed before the intersection is reconfigured. Planner Osowski shared that the development is likely to be underway or completed. Chair Huskins wondered what the risks are for the developer or the City of undoing something that has been approved. Commissioner Longo asked what is on the East side of the property. The map shows a ravine, and that is probably where the stormwater would go if there were more impervious surface. Planner Osowski asked whether he was referring to the lot's exterior boundaries. Commissioner Longo stated yes. Planner Osowski explained that it is a common area owned by the Walnut Grove Villas homeowner’s association, and the area is either a wetland or a stormwater pond. Commissioner Longo confirmed that the water would go there with more impervious surface, which is why he wondered what would go there. Planner Osowski noted that the Applicant could answer in a little more detail, which is probably why a stormwater pond is proposed on the East end of the property. Commissioner Magistad noted that the engineering report included a couple of requirements beyond those in the soil report. He asked if Planner Osowski could explain the requirements, line by line. Planner Osowski stated that the City Engineer mentioned providing a soil report based on the soil data, which indicates it might not be suitable for infiltration and that the Surface Water Management Plan Regulations may not be met, as basements may not be possible. He noted that the Engineer had several requirements. Commissioner Magistad noted that other agencies are mentioned, including MnDOT and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Commissioner Magistad asked if, as part of the requirements, the Applicant would be required to get permits from the Watershed District. Planner Osowski noted that it would be a requirement. Commissioner Longo stated that, in the previous planning, this zone was low-density, and there have been many conversations about the locations of low- and high-density zones in the City. Technically, being on a major throughway in the City, it could have been a high-density, or at least middle-density area like the other nearby areas. He asked if there were any reasons why that specific corner was zoned low-density. Planning Director Griffiths shared that, as the surrounding neighborhoods have developed over time, the former property owner has not wished to participate in those development projects. So, the property remained with the low-density designation in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, while all the other property was developed around it with higher-density housing. He shared that there were no specific conversations about the property, and the previous owner was not interested in developing it. Commissioner Longo asked Page 5 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 3 of 13 whether there were any concerns about a roundabout or whether the space is needed for something else. Planning Director Griffiths shared that that was not the case. During the previous Comprehensive Planning cycle, any improvements by MnDOT were not known at that time, and are still not known. Typically, the Comprehensive Plan does provide higher-density housing locations along the busier roadways in the City. He added that, to his knowledge, there had been no in-depth conversations by the Council or the Commission on this area. Chair Huskins assumed that traffic studies had been done along Eureka Road when the other developments went in. He wondered what the traffic reports indicated about the increase on Eureka Road, rather than just paying attention to the incremental increase, because that would not be very much from just six homes. However, if the roadway is already at capacity, the six additional homes might affect traffic flow on Eureka Road. He asked if those traffic studies exist and if they could be made available. Planning Director Griffiths noted not being sure what was done with the previous proposal, as Shorewood Ponds is ten to fifteen years old at this point, so the information would have to be reviewed again. He added that, as part of the review conducted by Engineering and Public Works, the traffic capacity of Eureka Road was assessed. At this point, the addition of six homes would not significantly impact traffic. It would be good to work with MnDOT on the intersection, though. Ben Passolt, Civil Engineer, ELLIOTT Design Build, INC, shared that the Applicant hired his company to review the project at the conceptual level and help reach the first step in deciding what can be done with the site. He shared that the site is a leftover lot along the highway where there was one single-family home. There are denser homes to the North and denser multi-family units to the West. He stated that the thought was that townhomes would be a good use of the site, and that the concept was the best use. He noted that the impervious does go slightly over the limit, but at this stage, rights-of-way could change, so the limit is unknown. The setbacks are also a little unknown at this point, but the R-3 setbacks were what we were trying to meet, even though the application is a PUD, in case the Applicant did not go with a PUD option. He added that, since the application is just a concept plan for stormwater, no hard-and-fast designs have been done yet, but he tried to show the best solution for the site's stormwater from a high-level standpoint. There are many options for addressing stormwater. Chair Huskins asked if the snow would be plowed down to where the retention pond would be. Mr. Passolt shared that this is probably what would happen, but did not know whether Shorewood had a specific snow storage requirement; usually, it is ten percent. He added that snow storage would not be too big of an issue on this property. Chair Huskins noted that there is no need for a turnaround for the emergency vehicles, as the road is only 120 feet long. He asked how Mr. Passolt imagined the vehicles getting back out onto Eureka. Mr. Passolt stated that the Applicant is working with what the Fire Marshal told them to do, and that he does not know how the emergency vehicles get in and out. Commissioner Magistad asked why the Applicant landed on six units, since it does not necessarily fit within the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Passolt stated that the six units fit the site well within the setbacks, and depending on what is done, certain approvals would be necessary. He added that six would fit with stormwater requirements and setbacks. Commissioner Magistad asked if two units would fit. Mr. Passolt agreed that two units would fit. Chair Huskins presumed that two units would be better conforming to the impervious surface. He asked if moving to two units was a feasible solution. Mr. Passolt stated that moving to two units would be a significant change to the design and would essentially be a complete redesign of the site. He added that this is why the Applicant is there: to see what can be done from a development standpoint. Chair Huskins asked Page 6 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 4 of 13 about four units. Mr. Passolt explained that, with four units, the architectural plans include a cut line, so the development could go to five units, which would be below the impervious limit. Commissioner Braithwaite asked whether, although this is just a concept plan, the location of the mailboxes has been looked into at all. Mr. Passolt shared that, at the concept stage, it had not been examined. Commissioner Longo asked whether the garages were single-car. Mr. Passolt shared that the garages are two-car, 23 feet wide. Commissioner Longo noted very small garages. Mr. Passolt explained that 23 feet is not that small; a standard two-car garage can be as small as 20 feet. Commissioner Longo asked where guests or additional cars would go. Mr. Passolt stated that more parking means more impervious surface. In previous iterations, there were three stalls off the back. He added that since the Applicant does not know what the parking requirement would be, it is unknown how many would need to be offered. Commissioner Longo stated that adding three stalls would significantly increase the impervious surface. Mr. Passolt noted that he did not know the number off the top of his head. Chair Huskins opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:36 P.M. Glen Coakley, 25430 Park Lane, stated that he recognized the hearing was a preliminary hearing and that some of his questions had already been addressed. He noted that one of the outstanding issues is that when he purchased his house about a year ago in the Walnut Grove Villas, he was informed of a height restriction of less than two stories. The application would be three stories high. He asked if that would require a variance. Chair Huskins noted that he was unaware that the units would be three stories; he thought that they were two. Mr. Passolt shared that the units are two stories. Mr. Coakley stated that, despite a garage below, the units are still only two stories high. He asked whether developing a multistory garage with two living spaces above it, each reaching 50 feet in height, would still be considered only two stories. Planning Director Griffiths shared that there is a bit of nuance in the rules for the Walnut Grove Villas and this property. He explained that the Walnut Grove Villas neighborhood was approved under its own PUD. In Walnut Grove Villas, there is a restriction that the homes cannot exceed two stories. He added that this application is not a part of that project. In this area, the rest of the City Code applies, which limits the maximum height to 35 feet or less. He stated that, at this time, the proposal would conceptually comply with the City Code. Still, the Applicant could request a deviation from the City Code, just as Walnut Grove Villas did with several different matters. He noted that at this point in the project, there is something to consider: the surrounding area has its own rules that differ from the City Code. He stated that the Applicant can request to create their own rules for the neighborhood. Chair Huskins asked what Mr. Coakley’s particular concern is, assuming that the structures are higher. Mr. Coakley shared that he did not think the height would fit with the surrounding buildings and, aesthetically, be at that height rather than the others. Mr. Coakley asked if there was any further information about MnDOT’s plan or when there might be further information. Planning Director Griffiths shared that MnDOT completed its planning study and identified several conceptual layouts for Highway 7. He added that MnDOT has a small project slated for 2029, which is largely unfunded at this time. The City does not yet know what the project will look like, but may have a clearer idea when the Legislative Session wraps up on May 18. Page 7 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Coakley shared that there is work being done on the Northern part of Eureka, and he could not determine whether it would go all the way down to Highway 7. He added that he hoped effort would be given to coordinate the work on Eureka, Highway 7, and this possible new development. Planner Osowski noted that Midco is currently working on Eureka Road. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the City has been in communication with MnDOT, and whatever happens with the site will be coordinated with the agencies. Ted Koenecke, 25405 Park Lane, stated that he has two concerns. One issue is traffic, which has already been addressed, but it becomes increasingly difficult in the summer when Freeman fields are in use. He added that the density of six units and what that may add, as it is very dangerous to pull out during rush hour. The new units would take the issue and make things a little more complex. The other issue is the density of six buildings. He noted that being in the fourth building would not affect him directly, but if many barriers are removed without adding better barriers that block more sound, that could be an issue. He stated that there is no way of knowing what the buildings would look like, as there are only renderings right now. Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. Commissioner Longo shared that his major concern is navigation. He stated that there would not be enough room for all units to navigate with all of the vehicles. He added that six units is too much. He asked if the quantity of the units is not being decided today. Planning Director Griffiths explained that at this point in the process, the Commission is reviewing a concept plan, a rough draft for the site. He shared that the Applicant is seeking to determine whether the Commission is favorable to the project, recommends changes, or has no path forward. The Commission can provide that feedback. Mr. Passolt stated to pull up the first page of the architectural plans, which shows the parking a little better. He added that parking or storage should not be a major concern for the units. Chair Huskins stated that MnDOT had commented that the trees might not block the sound from Highway 7, and that alternative technology might need to be considered. Mr. Passolt shared that since the project is still conceptual, the sound has not yet been determined. Trees are currently shown on the plans, but the Applicant is open to other options. Chair Huskins noted those would be reviewed at a subsequent stage. Commissioner Magistad asked if MnDOT could provide recommendations based on rights-of-way and future scenarios. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff could reach out again to see whether MnDOT is willing to provide a more specific recommendation. Still, the letter in the Agenda Packet is MnDOT's recommendation after reviewing the entire plan set. Chair Huskins noted concerns about the impervious surface, especially given the preliminary soil reports. He added that he is not opposed to the development at the concept stage, but if the number of units were reduced to four or five, that would be more appropriate for the site. Commissioner Magistad shared those concerns with Chair Huskins. He added that he is in no position to say how many units is the correct number, but there are too many contingencies for the rezoning of the one-acre parcel. Chair Huskins noted that the density is greater than that of any adjoining development. Merle Steinkraus, the Applicant, stated that the concept is preliminary and that he is there to see what the Commission would approve, so five units would be okay and there would be no problem. He shared that the plans allow for cutting off one of the units, and so the proposal would probably Page 8 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 6 of 13 be a three-unit backing up to Highway 7 and a two-unit backing up to the north side. Then the site would be in good shape for the impervious surface. Chair Huskins asked whether, if the Commission makes a recommendation for approval to the Council, the number of units on the property needs to be addressed. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the Applicant is at the meeting seeking the Commission’s preliminary feedback on the concept. If there are concerns or specific requests that the Commission would like the Applicant to address, they can be included in the recommendation. He added that the Commission can revisit things in the future, but if there are requests or changes the Commission would like to see, now is the time to provide feedback. Chair Huskins stated that a reduction to five units would be acceptable. He noted concerns with the part of the property that abuts Highway 7 from a sound and safety standpoint. In the Southeast corner, there was a note of property that could be used as joint property for all of the residents, but that is closer to the road. He raised concerns about the lane and asked whether the entire area would be the fire lane. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it is correct and in line with the understanding of the Fire Marshal’s comments. Many of the details would need to be fleshed out. No street parking would be allowed. Chair Huskins shared that the curbs would be painted yellow along the entire lane. He noted that his comments are in addition to the Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Magistad would like the City to follow up with MnDOT to ask specific questions about right-of-way and what the future might hold. Commissioner Longo shared that if MnDOT decides to add a roundabout, the entire design is gone. Chair Huskins shared that if the Applicant moves forward with the plans, it would be up to MnDOT whether there is new development that conforms to the plans or whether something that has been built needs to be undone. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff can reach out to MnDOT between now and the City Council meeting to see whether they will make a recommendation. Chair Huskins asked if there would be another public hearing. Planner Osowski shared that this meeting is the Public Hearing for the PUD concept plan, and that City Council would take it up for discussion. With future stages, there would be more public hearings. Commissioner Magistad stated there could be a new concept. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the PUD concept plan application is optional, and the Staff encouraged the Applicant to follow that process because the property is unique. Based on the feedback, the Applicant could provide another concept plan or, at their own risk, move forward with another application. Chair Huskins reiterated the need to be clear about the recommendations, including those from the Staff. He shared that, so far, there is a concern about the density of six units and that he was comfortable with five units. Commissioner Longo shared that five would be good to help with the impervious surface and to address the navigational issues. Commissioner Magistad shared that his concern is the impervious surface; if five units mitigate it, he would be fine with that. He shared that there are many contingencies and that if the City is being asked to rezone, the impervious surface requirements must be met. Commissioner Longo stated that they should be more specific with five units, as they are sized in the plan today. Mr. Passolt spoke on the impervious surface. The lot limit, with part in the Shoreland Overlay District, is 1,000 feet from Lake Minnewashta. The area that is not in Lake Minnewashta is 33 percent, and the area that is is 25 percent, so the impervious surface is right in between, about 1,000 square feet over. He added that, with the Watershed, a permit would need to be pulled regardless of what is done, as that is standard operating procedure. From an engineering perspective, 1.1 inches of rainwater needed to be captured over the area, which is about 600 cubic feet. In terms of the overall pond sizing, the only increase needed is approximately 10 percent at this rough concept stage. He added that Page 9 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 7 of 13 exceeding the impervious surface limit right now is not a major change, as the rate requirement, volume retention requirements, and water quality treatment would all still be met. Chair Huskins stated that it would be appropriate to stay within the Staff’s recommendation on the impervious surface requirements and that it would not necessarily have to be the five units. He noted being concerned about safety and sound on the part of the property that abuts Highway 7, and about the in and out of emergency vehicles without an obvious place to turn around. Commissioner Longo pointed out that keeping with the five units would limit the number of cars and residents who need to navigate around. Commissioner Braithwaite pointed out that the Commission could state five units with a higher footprint but still fall within the footprint, resulting in one fewer household. Chair Huskins added that this may also allow the movement of large vehicles. Commissioner Braithwaite noted that the vast majority of emergency vehicles would have to back out and provide their own traffic control, but being right off of Highway 7 is a little unique. Chair Huskins asked if both the requirements should be stated: the reduction to the units and the impervious surface requirements. Commissioner Magistad stated that he is okay with that, but also wants the MnDOT recommendation. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it can be included in the recommendation. Commissioner Braithwaite expressed appreciation to the Applicant for considering the future proposed right-of-way versus what the City has now. The setbacks are in line with that. He added that his biggest hesitancy is the risk of changes at the what-if intersection, especially in the case of a roundabout. The lower density may also allow for more space. He stated that the plan could be revisited if more information were obtained from MnDOT. Commissioner Magistad pointed out that this project may not be unique, as any development along Highway 7 may have the same issues. Commissioner Braithwaite stated that he is in favor of rezoning this area, as it can accommodate higher density. He noted liking the townhome concept. Chair Huskins asked about the project's height. Commissioner Braithwaite pointed out that if the project were a single-family home, the height may be higher as well. He stated that with the units being right next to Highway 7, they did not strike him as grotesque. He added that if there were height along Highway 7, that would be the appropriate corridor. The tree screening may help to eliminate that as well, and the majority of the trees on the north side are being kept. Chair Huskins summarized the concern to the Applicant: the Commission wishes the Applicant consider five units instead of six to conform with the stated impervious surface, consider the side of the property that abuts to Highway 7 and what type of trees might be enough for sound abatement and safety, more consideration given to emergency vehicles entering and exiting along the fire lane corridor, and all of the other recommendations of the Staff. Planning Director Griffiths noted the coordination with MnDOT. Chair Huskins asked if the Staff would do that. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff will reach out to obtain more information before the Council meeting. Chair Huskins stated that information would be shared with the Applicant. Chair Huskins asked to review the conditions from the Staff. Planning Director Griffiths shared that from the Staff’s perspective, the recommendations are fairly standard for any concept plan application of this kind. He reviewed the conditions that were in the Packet. Chair Huskins asked whether the Applicant understood the conditions and whether they wished to comment. Mr. Steinkraus stated that MnDOT may not be able to get back to the City before the Council meeting. He asked where that leaves the application, then. Planning Director Griffiths said they would do their best. Chair Huskins noted that any recommendation that the Commission Page 10 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 8 of 13 makes would not be contingent on having that information. Commissioner Magistad noted disagreement with there being no contingency regarding whether MnDOT gets back to the City. Chair Huskins shared that it would be contingent upon the Staff reaching out. Planning Director Griffiths shared that, in his experience, MnDOT does not provide formal comments until a project is more fleshed out. He added that the City has a good working relationship with MnDOT and is fairly optimistic that there will be some response. He shared that the Commission and the Council could state that this needs to be figured out, and that, as the project moves forward, with the next application, this is something that absolutely needs to be said by MnDOT. He added that the Staff understands the Commission's direction. Braithwaite moved, Longo seconded, recommending approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 25485 State Highway 7, including the nine Staff conditions with additional recommendations of sound and safety abatement along Highway 7, to meet the impervious surface limits, to reduce overall density by one unit down to five, Staff requests further feedback from MnDOT, and to improve the ingress and egress. Motion passed 4/0. Planner Osowski stated that the application will be taken to the Council on May 26. Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 8:18 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:23 P.M. 5. OTHER BUSINESS – A. Discuss Zoning Code Update Planning Director Griffiths introduced the HKGi consultants for a presentation. Beth Richmond, a Consultant with HKGi, stated that the presentation was intended to show what has been done over the last several months. She shared that the Phase One update to the Zoning Code has been in progress. She noted that, along with the Staff, a fully drafted document has been prepared. This is being presented to the Commission to answer questions or provide clarification before the information moves into the next Phase, which includes opening for public comment, Commission review, and formal adoption. She reminded that the project came out of the Zoning Code Audit, which was completed in October 2025. The Audit project was reviewing the existing code and identifying areas that needed changes, updates, or clarification. From the Audit came a comprehensive list of items intended to be changed during Phases One and Two. She added that the items were gone through with the Staff to determine what was Phase One and what was Phase Two. In Phase One, primarily, the items being addressed are those that make the Code more usable. That entails adding tables and graphics, reorganizing the Code, adjusting some zoning districts, and updating the Code's procedures. Ms. Richmond noted that the project was kicked off in December and that the Code updates were made in the winter and early spring. Now in May, the consultants are meeting with the Commission and the City Council to give them a preview of the full draft to review, with the Code adoption process taking place early this summer. She shared that the big goal of Phase One is to make the Code more usable by reorganizing, ensuring consistency with references, using different terminology and language, and improving graphics and tables. The graphics and tables can clarify and illustrate some of the trickier standards. She showed an example of a graphic that would be used in the Code. She explained that, right now, the Code has 26 sections, and, in reorganizing, they considered how to group the topics and sections in a way that makes sense to all. She gave an example of the base districts being consolidated in one place within the Code Page 11 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 9 of 13 rather than one after another. The other big change is with the existing section 1201.03, which used to be the catch-all section, but now the different pieces of that section have been pulled out into the areas where the information belongs. Instead of 26 individual sections, there are now nine divisions and sections within each division. She explained that, in section 1201.05, Overlay and Special Zoning Districts, the Floodplain of the Zoning Code is incorporated into it, in addition to the existing Shoreland and Planned Unit Development language. Similarly, in the development standards, the wetland development chapter and the tree preservation chapter were incorporated. She added that Chapter 1100 has been removed and is now incorporated into the Zoning Code. She stated that, for the Zoning Districts, the big change is that the number has been reduced from 13 to 8. This came about by reviewing the zoning districts' dimensional requirements and allowed uses, consolidating similar ones, and removing districts that are not applied today. She shared that the naming has been updated for the Zoning Districts, trying to clarify the use of each district and what the districts are. In the existing Zoning Districts, all R-1 districts share the same name, making it difficult to distinguish between them. The renaming was redone to illustrate better what is happening in those districts. She showed a zoning map from the 1950s. She explained that R-1B and R-1C have been combined into a single district, now called Large Lot Detached Residential. The other changes for R-1 are just naming changes. She explained that, for R-2, the proposal is to combine R-2A and R-2B into one Low Density Residential District and eliminate R-2C, as it is not found anywhere in the City today. The density name route was chosen based on the type of housing allowed in the district. She added that R-3A and R-3B have no substantive changes as they were updated recently. R-C district is being proposed for elimination because, when a parcel is developed in the district, the developer chooses either residential or commercial. All of the lots today are either residential or commercial, so they can be rezoned for whatever is on the site. She pointed out that if, while the Comprehensive Plan update is underway, there is a desire for mixed use, it could be added in Phase Two. She explained that C-1 stays the same, with only a change in the abbreviation; C-2 is proposed for removal, as it is not in the City; and L-R is just an abbreviation change. Commissioner Longo asked whether, by removing the R-C zoning district, mixed use would be eliminated as an option. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the option is currently not in that zoning district. The R-C district does not allow for both residential and commercial; it has to be picked. He added that this is why the proposal is to get rid of R-C: all the properties have been developed. In doing the Comprehensive Plan, it may be decided to add that mixed-use district. Phase One is the cleanup, making the Code easier to update based on the Comprehensive Plan, and Phase Two is making the changes after the Comprehensive Plan is complete. Chair Huskins asked if the City would be required to allow multiple home types in a single district. Planning Director Griffiths noted that this will be required as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. Chair Huskins shared that there will be an obvious need to update when the City reaches that point. Planning Director Griffiths noted that it is common for cities to amend zoning codes after a Comprehensive Plan cycle. Commissioner Braithwaite asked if the proposed changes under Phase One would be adopted before the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is correct. Commissioner Braithwaite asked whether the City may designate parcels as mixed-use in the Comprehensive Plan if that is not currently in the Code. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it was correct. Ms. Richmond pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan comes first, and the Zoning Code must be consistent with it. Planning Director Griffiths shared that nothing prevents the City from amending the Comprehensive Plan if a mixed-use project arises. Just because the City does not have zoning districts does not mean the projects cannot happen; there is always a process that can be followed. Page 12 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 10 of 13 Ms. Richmond shared that, when discussing the tables in the Code, she mentioned a table that was created for principal uses and accessory uses. The table is intended to list all the different uses and show what is permitted in each district. She shared that the tables are helpful to all people because they clearly show what is permitted. The uses were updated, driven by the protected uses in the State Statute, and the Code needed to be updated to reflect that. She explained that the dimensional table for lot dimensions and site dimensions for each district. Within each district, the allowed types of uses are listed. She added that the lot standards were adjusted as needed to conform to the City's lot requirements in the 2040 Plan, and that different lot uses have different needs and expectations. Ms. Richmond stated that the next question concerns fencing and that there has been much discussion with the Staff. She pointed out that there is a provision in the Code today addressing boundary line fences, which are located within 8 feet of the property line. She added that the requirement is that boundary-line fences must be constructed so they are at least 25 percent open, meaning a typical privacy fence would not be permitted. The Staff has noted that this has been enforced along all boundary lines, and there are many requests for privacy fences, which are not allowed. She asked whether there is an appetite to adjust the language regarding fences within the interior of the property. Chair Huskins shared that he liked keeping the language, and if someone wishes to have a privacy fence, then they need to bring it to the Planning Commission and the Council. Visually, he is not a fan of putting blockades between homes, and it is not very neighborly. He added that there are situations that require it. Commissioner Longo pointed out that two of the fence requests that the Commission had were for privacy fences. He noted that as the lots become smaller, the Commission should consider revising the language because there will be more variances. Commissioner Magistad stated that he would like to increase the number of options and reduce the number of variances that came before the Commission. Commissioner Braithewaite stated that maybe a balance could be struck between the two options, and stated that, except for the backline, which could lead to weird interpretations of what the backline is. He noted being torn. Another balance could be keeping the Code and reducing the percentage, but that has cons as well. Commissioner Longo pointed out that the fences are just for the side. Ms. Richmond stated that there is already a separate provision requiring fences along any street; this would only apply to the interior. Ms. Richmond pointed out that, in reading code, a boundary line fence is one on the property line. She asked if there was a reason that this Code states eight feet. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff looked, but they could not find the reason for the eight feet. Ms. Richmond stated that sometimes she has seen if the fence is on the actual property line or within two feet, then there are certain requirements. She stated that the eight-foot gap is unique. Commissioner Magistad agreed with Commissioner Longo that as Shorewood becomes more urban or parcels become smaller, the desire for privacy will increase. The issue could be addressed now or in the future. Chair Huskins stated that if the Code is changed, that would not preclude someone from putting up a fence that is 25 percent or more. Planning Director Griffiths shared that good direction was received from the Commission, and the language was brought up because it is the number one request that the Staff receives that has to be repeatedly turned down. Chair Huskins noted that the eight feet could be reduced to a closer distance. Ms. Richmond shared that anything is on the table, including the percentage or the distance. Planning Director Griffiths shared that from Staff’s perspective, he is not as much of a fan of changing the percentage, because 25 percent is easy to understand. Chair Huskins stated that eight feet does not really make sense. Commissioner Braithewaite asked what distance is required for the adjacent property’s approval. Planner Osowski stated that if someone is looking to put up a fence Page 13 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 11 of 13 and the neighbor already has one, and it is within 3 feet of the neighbor's fence, then the neighbor’s permission is needed. If the neighbor does not have a fence, then the fence can be right up to the property line. Commissioner Braithewaite stated that three feet makes sense, and that if the eight feet were reduced, then three would be a good number. Chair Huskins noted that with a smaller lot, eight feet makes a big difference, and he would be fine with the three feet. Ms. Richmond shared that the discussion would go to the Council and that adjustments would be made to the full draft based on the Council's input. Ms. Richmond shared that the last topic concerns procedures and that there have been mostly technical changes. She stated that, as part of the reorganization, all procedures from all sections have been consolidated into one area: 1201.90 Procedures and Enforcement. At the start of the section, there is a common procedures section, such as how the withdrawal of applications occurs, or who can apply, anything that would be the same all the way through. She added that a new procedure has been added for Site Plan Review, which applies to the construction or alteration of non-residential buildings or dwellings with five or more units. This would be part of either the building permit approval process or other requests and would be administratively reviewed, because, with site plans, if it meets Code, the City has to approve it anyway. If something complicated comes up that the Zoning Administrator believes the Commission should weigh in on, there is the option to refer the site plan to the Commission, then to the City Council. She stated that the other procedural change relates to PUDs and would bring Shorewood in line with what other cities typically do. The first is to establish PUDs by zoning amendment rather than by CUP, which is much cleaner and streamlines the process. There were a few procedures for processing amendments to PUDs, and they are divided into minor and major amendments, with definitions in the Code. She added that the concept plan process is being proposed not as approval, but as the Commission providing feedback, which is fairly typical of other cities. The feedback is not binding. She stated that the other change relates to the general concept planning process; some cities do not hold a public hearing, or only notify adjacent neighbors. Public hearings have statutory requirements, and some cities hold public meetings instead of formal hearings. She asked whether the public hearing process is helpful or if there are opportunities to scale it back. Commissioner Magistad noted that the optics would be bad and the timing is wrong to shrink public hearing capacity. He shared that maybe in the future it would be a better time. The rest of the Commissioners agreed. Chair Huskins stated that enforcement was mentioned and that Shorewood is a complaint-driven enforcement City. He asked if there is a need or benefit to having some language in the Code about that. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the language around code enforcement is not in the Zoning Code; it is in the Administrative Chapter of the City Code. That is on a list of things to update in a separate process later this year to ensure the language is up to date as well. He added that there is some general penalty and enforcement language in the Code that refers back to the general standards that are followed. Ms. Richmond shared that the draft would be returned to the Council next week to discuss the same information. There is a full draft that is ready to be posted online for everyone to comment on. The draft will be online for about a month. When the feedback is reviewed and incorporated into the draft as applicable, then the adoption process will start later in the summer. Chair Huskins asked how widely the draft will be communicated. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the draft would be made available through all the usual channels for comment. There has been one announcement in the newsletter, and then something will be sent to the dedicated email list. He shared that the Commission will have homework to review the draft at the same time as the rest of the public. Chair Huskins asked whether the draft would go online shortly after the May 11 Council meeting. Ms. Richmond stated that she should be ready to go that same week. Planning Page 14 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 12 of 13 Director Griffiths shared that the updates are not policy substantive. For most things, there will not be a noticeable change; the Code will just be easier to read. 6. REPORTS A. City Council Council Liaison Maddy gave a brief overview of recent Council discussions and decisions. B. Staff Planning Director Griffiths stated that, for the next meeting, the agenda will include three items: one conditional use permit and two variances for residential projects. He shared that he is not aware of anyone being absent at the next meeting, so that the photo may be taken. He explained that the City Council received the same presentation as the Commission about the Comprehensive Plan update, and that the Comprehensive Plan website and survey are now online. The Comprehensive Plan was on the first page of the newsletter, and a lot more communication will be rolling out over the next few weeks. He noted that volunteers would hand out handouts at the Community Recycling Day and also get things rolling for the other Parks events. At first, the communication will be from the survey, and later this summer, more person- to-person engagement. Chair Huskins stated that Commissioner Holker had asked if there could be a presence at the voting precinct. He asked if an answer had been received to that. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the Staff looked into that, and those activities cannot be done at the voting precinct. He noted that it is a gray area and is probably not in keeping with the Spirit of the polling places. There will be flyers up at the City Hall. Commissioner Braithewaite asked how simple and straightforward the survey is to do and whether there is an expense. Planning Director Griffiths stated that, in this case, it is part of the consultant's cost, but similar surveys have been in-house. He added that what was unique about this survey was the mapping question, which the Staff wanted included. He did not know the exact cost. Chair Huskins asked if the exact number of surveys taken so far was known. Planning Director Griffiths stated he would know more on Thursday at the check-in meeting with the consultant. Planning Director Griffiths shared that, for the next City Council meetings, there would be a Zoning Code update at the work session on May 11 if someone from the Commission would like to attend. Then, a Commissioner is needed for the May 26 meeting to cover the concept plan. Commissioner Magistad stated that he could do it on May 26. Chair Huskins noted that a Planning Commission meeting is on his calendar for the same day as the general election. Planning Director Griffiths stated that was moved and would send out the work plan with the dates. The August meeting was also moved. C. Commission There were no comments from the Commission. 7. ADJOURNMENT Page 15 of 55 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 2026 Page 13 of 13 Magistad moved, Longo seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 2026, at 9:14 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. Page 16 of 55 Planning Commission Item 4.A. Title/Subject: 5850 Boulder Bridge LN Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Meeting Date: June 2, 2026 Prepared By: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Attachments 1. Project Narrative 2. Additional Project Information 3. Existing Survey 4. Survey with Garage Addition 5. Construction Plans Background APPLICANT: Ross & Kathleen Simpson LOCATION: 5850 Boulder Bridge LN REVIEW DEADLINE: August 20, 2026 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Minimum Density Residential (0.1-1.0 Units Per Acre) ZONING DISTRICT: Planned Unit Development (PUD) The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for construction of an attached garage resulting in more than 1,200 square feet of accessory buildings on the property. The proposed garage addition would be 874.50 square feet in size, bringing the total square footage of the existing and proposed garage to 1,862.7 square feet. Notice of the application was sent by postcard to all property owners within 500 feet of the property and a sign was placed in front of the property in early May. Notice of the public hearing was sent by US mail to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting, and was published in the City's official newspaper, on the City's website and at City Hall. Notice of the public hearing was also distributed to residents who have signed up to receive public hearing notices through the City's website. As of the publication of this report, no public comments have been received regarding this request. A single-family home was built on the subject property in 1993 as part of the Boulder Bridge 2nd Addition development. The lot area is 75,125 square feet (1.72 acres), according to Hennepin County Property Tax Records. The subject property is surrounded by existing low density single-family lots to the west and south, and by the Boulder Bridge Farm Association common area property to the north and east. The site is not located within a shoreland protection zone. Analysis The Boulder Bridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) allows accessory buildings to be built according to City Code requirements for the R-1A zoning district. City Code 1201.03, Subd. 2. d. (4) allows greater than 1,200 square feet of accessory buildings on single-family residential properties in the R-1A zoning district through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) provided the Page 17 of 55 following criteria can be met: 1. The total area of accessory buildings shall not exceed the floor area of all stories above grade of the principal structure. The total floor area of the main and upper levels of the principal structure is 3,977 square feet, while the total area of accessory buildings is 1,862.7 square feet. The proposed accessory building meets this requirement. 2. In no case shall the total area of accessory buildings exceed 10% of the minimum lot area for the district in which the property is located. The minimum lot size required by the Boulder Bridge PUD and the R-1A zoning district is 40,000 square feet. Therefore, the maximum total area of accessory buildings for the subject property is 4,000 square feet. The proposed 1,862.7 square feet of accessory buildings meets this requirement. 3. In evaluating the conditional use permit, the City shall take into consideration the location of existing and proposed structures, site drainage and landscaping. The location of the accessory building meets City Code required building setbacks. Site drainage has been reviewed by the City Engineer as part of this application and the proposal meets all applicable City Code requirements. Site drainage will also be reviewed as part of the building permit process prior to construction taking place. The proposal also meets all landscaping and tree preservation requirements. 4. The architectural character of the proposed accessory buildings shall be similar and consistent with other buildings on the site and in the area. The proposed accessory building will be consistent with the existing single-family home on the property and will be compatible with other buildings in the area. 5. Properties occupied by nonconforming accessory structures are not allowed to exceed three accessory structures, or to exceed 1,000 square feet or 1,200 square feet of accessory floor area, based upon the district in which they are located. There are no nonconforming accessory structures on the subject property. Therefore, this requirement does not apply to the applicants' request. In addition to the specific City Code requirements for oversized accessory buildings, the following general review criteria for all Conditional Use Permits must also be considered: 1. The proposed use, and its related construction, would be consistent with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that “Accessory buildings within the community shall be of a compatible design and size to maintain a residential character. These buildings shall be limited exclusively to residential uses and relative activities”. The proposed accessory building meets this recommendation. 2. The proposed use would be compatible with present and future land uses in the area and would not tend to or depreciate the area in which it is proposed. This lot is guided for Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and this application would not impact its density. This accessory building is not anticipated to have a negative impact on neighboring property values. Page 18 of 55 3. Adequate public facilities and services, including existing and anticipated traffic concerns, are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. The accessory building will not impact traffic or public facilities. 4. The proposed use conforms to the applicable regulations of the zoning district in which it is located and otherwise conforms to all applicable regulations of the City Code. The proposed use conforms to all regulations of the zoning district and City Code, including building setbacks and impervious surface coverage limits. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the occupants of surrounding lands. There are not expected to be any detrimental impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare of neighboring residents. Findings/Recommendation Since the applicants' request meets the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent the requirements of the R-1A zoning district and Boulder Bridge Planned Unit Development (PUD), City staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall meet all applicable City Code requirements and obtain necessary permits from all required jurisdictions having an interest in the project, including but not limited to a building permit from the City of Shorewood. When reviewing a conditional use permit, the City acts in a limited, quasi-judicial role. It must only consider whether the facts of the application satisfy the standards set forth in the City Code. If a proposed conditional use permit satisfies these standards, then generally the applicant is entitled to the conditional use permit pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.3595. Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the proposed Conditional Use Permit, take any testimony provided, and make a recommendation based on findings of fact to the City Council. Page 19 of 55 April 20, 2026 To City of Shorewood Planning RE: Garage Addition, 5850 Boulder Bridge LN This request is for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct an attached garage addition to the existing single-family residence. The plans have been prepared by Boyer Building Corporation and are designed to fully match and complement the architectural style, materials, and character of the existing home. The proposed garage size is within the allowable limits for the property and zoning district. The structure is located well within all required setbacks, and the site grading plan provides appropriate drainage without adverse impacts to neighboring properties or public infrastructure. In accordance with Section 1201.04 of the Shorewood Zoning Regulations, the following information is provided to demonstrate compliance with the Conditional Use Permit standards: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The proposed attached garage addition is consistent with the goals and policies of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, which supports reinvestment in existing housing stock, maintenance of high-quality residential neighborhoods, and improvements that enhance property functionality while preserving community character. The design maintains the scale, appearance, and residential use envisioned for this area. 2. Compatibility with Present and Future Land Uses The proposed use is compatible with surrounding residential land uses and will not depreciate or negatively affect the character of the neighborhood. The garage addition is architecturally integrated with the existing home, uses high-quality materials, and maintains appropriate separation from adjacent properties. The project does not alter traffic patterns, noise levels, or other conditions that could impact neighboring homes. There are several homes in the subdivision with 4 or more car garages. Page 20 of 55 3. No Overburdening of City Services The proposed garage addition will not overburden city services. The project does not require additional public utilities beyond those already serving the property. Existing public streets, drainage systems, and municipal services can fully accommodate the improvement without modification or increased demand. 4. Promotion of Public Welfare and Protection of Health and Safety The establishment and operation of the proposed garage addition will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. The structure meets all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. Proper drainage and grading ensure no negative environmental or stormwater impacts. The project improves on-site vehicle storage and reduces outdoor parking, which enhances neighborhood safety and aesthetics. 5. Conformance with Applicable Regulations The proposed garage addition conforms to all applicable zoning regulations for the district, including setbacks, height, lot coverage, and accessory structure standards. The design complies with all relevant provisions of the Shorewood City Code and has been prepared to meet or exceed required performance standards. Please feel free to contact with any questions. Ross and Kathy Simpson 5850 Boulder Bridge LN Shorewood, MN 55331 Page 21 of 55 Conditional Use Permit Additional Information 5850 Boulder Bridge LN 5850 Boulder Bridge LN, Shorewood, MN April 22, 2026 Supplemental Information for Oversized Accessory Building Standards This document provides the additional information requested by the City of Shorewood to complete the Conditional Use Permit application for the attached garage at 5850 Boulder Bridge LN. 1. Principal Structure Floor Area • Main level: 2,231 sq ft • Second floor: 1,746 sq ft • Total above-grade floor area: 3,977 sq ft 2. Accessory Structure Floor Area • Existing garage: 988.2 sq ft • Proposed attached garage addition: 874.5 sq ft • Total accessory area: 1,862.7 sq ft 3. Performance Standard Compliance • The total accessory area (1,862.7 sq ft) is less than the total above-grade floor area of the principal structure (3,977 sq ft), meeting the standard for oversized accessory buildings. • The accessory area is also below the 10% minimum lot-area allowance of 4,000 sq ft. Page 22 of 55 Page 23 of 55 Boulder Bridge Lane # LICENSE NO. DATE S1 APRIL 3, 2026Phone (952) 474-7964 Web: www.advsur.com Advance Surveying & Engineering, Co. CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESS SHEET TITLE PROPOSED SURVEYSHEET NO. SHEET 1 OF 1 DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE 40200 260453 JR DRAWING NUMBER DATE DRAFTED: DATE SURVEYED:MARCH 26, 2026 APRIL 3, 2026# 42379 Thomas M. Bloom EXISTING HARDCOVER House 3,293 Sq. Ft. Existing Deck 392 Sq. Ft. Paver Driveway 4,656 Sq. Ft. Concrete Surfaces 152 Sq. Ft. Ret. Walls 58 Sq. Ft. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 8,551 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 75,190 Sq. Ft. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 11.4% SHEET SIZE 22 X 34 SCALE - 1" = 20' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 1, BOULDER BRIDGE 2ND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown. 2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey. 3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property. 4.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon. 5.Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of the building. 6.Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding with a proposed design of the site or with construction. If there are cantilevers shown on the survey, they are counted as hardcover under the house calculations. 7.Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. 8.While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we are not as familiar with your proposed plans as you, your architect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location of the improvements and proposed yard grades carefully to verify that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local codes and minimum requirements as the local building and zoning officials in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the proposed improvements and obtain their approvals before beginning construction or planning improvements to the property. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "●" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted. ROSS SIMPSON 5850 BOULDER BRIDGE LANE SHOREWOOD, MN 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401 Deephaven, Minnesota 55391 LEGEND PROPOSED HARDCOVER House 4,161 Sq. Ft. Existing Deck 392 Sq. Ft. Paver Driveway 4,638 Sq. Ft. Concrete Surfaces 40 Sq. Ft. Ret. Walls 58 Sq. Ft. TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 9,289 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 75,190 Sq. Ft. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 12.3% Page 24 of 55 SHEET: DRAWN BY: Simpson, Ross SCALE: Project Overview DATE: CLIENT ADDRESS 03/19/2026 as noted on plan 1 3435 County Rd 101 Minnetonka 55345 952.475.2097 Layout Page Table LabelTitle Description Comments P-1 Project Overview Title Sheet, Index, Project Scope, Site Location Map 1 Proposed Addition Floor Plan 2 Elevations and Details 3 Electrical Plan 4 Framing Plan and Sections Simpson, Ross - Garage Addition 5850 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood MN Revision Table Number Date Revised By Description 5850 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood MN JB Page 25 of 55 SHEET: DRAWN BY: Simpson, Ross SCALE: Proposed Addition Floor Plan DATE: CLIENT ADDRESS 03/19/2026 as noted on plan 2 3435 County Rd 101 Minnetonka 55345 952.475.2097 5850 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood MN JB Page 26 of 55 SHEET: DRAWN BY: Simpson, Ross SCALE: Elevations and Details DATE: CLIENT ADDRESS 03/19/2026 as noted on plan 3 3435 County Rd 101 Minnetonka 55345 952.475.2097 5850 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood MN JB Page 27 of 55 SHEET: DRAWN BY: Simpson, Ross SCALE: Electrical Plan DATE: CLIENT ADDRESS 03/19/2026 as noted on plan 4 3435 County Rd 101 Minnetonka 55345 952.475.2097 5850 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood MN JB Page 28 of 55 SHEET: DRAWN BY: Simpson, Ross SCALE: Framing Plan and Sections DATE: CLIENT ADDRESS 03/19/2026 as noted on plan 5 3435 County Rd 101 Minnetonka 55345 952.475.2097 5850 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood MN JB Page 29 of 55 Planning Commission Item 4.B. Title/Subject: 6145 Club Valley Rd Variance Meeting Date: June 2, 2026 Prepared By: Aaron Osowski, Planner Attachments 1. Narrative 2. Homeowner Letter 3. Existing Survey 4. Existing Floor Plan 5. Proposed Survey 6. Proposed Floor Plan 7. Elevations (East and West) Background APPLICANT: HOLMmade, LLC LOCATION: 6145 Club Valley Rd REVIEW DEADLINE: August 20, 2026 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential (1-2 Units Per Acre) CURRENT ZONING: R-1C – Single-Family Residential Page 30 of 55 REQUEST The applicant requests a variance to expand their existing home’s attached garage. The existing home and attached garage currently conform to all setbacks. Under the plan, the applicant proposes adding additional width to their garage on the side to accommodate the installation of stairs and a vertical lift in their existing garage. The applicant proposes the following variance to accommodate their garage addition: • A 27-foot setback from the rear property line where 40 feet is required. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of the application was sent by postcard to all property owners within 500 feet of the property and by placing a sign in the right-of-way in front of the home. Notice of the public hearing was sent by US mail to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting and was published in the City’s official newspaper, at City Hall, and distributed through the City’s website and public notification email list. BACKGROUND The home was originally constructed in 1978 and is part of the Club Terrace addition that was platted in 1957. The property lies within the R-1C zoning district, featuring the following setbacks: • Front yard: 35 feet • Rear yard: 40 feet • Side yard: 10 feet on each side, or 35 feet on a side yard abutting a street Because this is a corner lot, the front lot line is the southern property line, per City Code 1201.02, which states: LOT LINE - FRONT. The front of a lot shall be, for purposes of complying with this chapter, that boundary having the least width abutting a public right-of-way or private street. Page 31 of 55 This would make the northern property line the rear property line (40 foot setback), with the eastern property line serving as the side property line (10 foot setback) and the western property line the side property line abutting a street (35 foot setback). APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL The applicants propose expanding their current garage to allow for the installation of stairs and a vertical lift to accommodate one of the owners, who has a disability. The addition would be 14 feet wide by 23.6 feet deep. The total area of the garage addition would be 330.4 square feet. ANALYSIS Section 1201.05 subd.3.a. of the zoning regulations sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. These criteria are open to interpretation. The applicant has provided a narrative explaining how the request meets the variance review criteria. Staff reviewed the request according to the criteria as follows: Intent of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The applicants propose to use the property for residential purposes, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. a. Reasonable: The applicants have proposed reasonable residential uses on the property. b. Unique Situation vs. Self-Created: The practical difficulty is unique to this property as the home does not sit parallel to the side property lines. It should be noted that, for corner lots in this neighborhood, the rear setback is applied consistently. The adjacent lot to the north (6115 Club Valley Rd), also a corner lot, has its home 60 feet from the rear property line. The adjacent lot to the east (24400 Wood Dr), another corner lot, has its home over 90 feet from the rear property line. The applicant’s stated reason for needing a garage addition is to accommodate the installation of a wheelchair lift and stairs in the existing garage. The homeowners state in Page 32 of 55 their letter that one of them fell down the stairs and broke their leg in January, requiring the installation of this lift. c. Essential Character: The addition of one extra garage stall would not significantly alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic Considerations: The applicant has not proposed the variance solely based on economic considerations, but to improve accessibility to the home. Impact on Area/Public Welfare, Other Lands or Improvements: The applicant is not proposing anything that would impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property or increase the risk of fire. The grading on the lot is relatively flat, and the addition of one garage stall would not have a noticeable impact on water runoff. Minimum to Alleviate Practical Difficulty: The addition of one garage stall is the minimum necessary to maintain two garage stalls on the property, although the homeowners would still be able to park in their driveway without a third stall. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must acquire all necessary permits prior to beginning the project. • The proposed addition shall be architecturally consistent with the existing home and surrounding neighborhood. Staff acknowledges that the variance criteria are open to interpretation and the Planning Commission could reasonably find otherwise. Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the proposed variance, take any testimony provided, and make a recommendation to the City Council based on findings of fact. Page 33 of 55 Variance Application Description 6145 Club Valley Rd This application seeks a variance regarding the setback requirements for this property. The homeowners intend to add a third stall to the existing garage. The current split-level front entrance has limited space, posing accessibility challenges as the owners age in place. Additionally, the new entrance would address safety concerns related to ice accumulation at the front of the house during winter and accessing that entrance to get to main level. The proposed interior entrance requires approximately 10 feet of stairs and sufficient space to accommodate a wheelchair lift for guests that visit frequently. These features will occupy a significant portion of the current garage’s square footage, necessitating the third-stall addition to maintain adequate indoor parking. The property’s unconventional orientation relative to the street leads to a distinctive lot configuration. Since the lot isn’t situated on a typical corner or non-corner lot, the house has an unusual orientation that deviates from the set-back regulations. According to Shorewood setback standards, the front of the house is positioned on the side of the lot. The east side is considered the back of the house but is also classified as a side with set-back standards. On the other hand, the north side is regarded as the rear yard, but when viewed from the house’s perspective, it is the side of the house. We are requesting a variance to establish a setback of 27 feet on the north side of the house, enabling the construction of a third stall on the side of the existing garage. This proposed addition would reduce the distance to the neighboring structure to the north to 86 feet. The addition will not significantly affect neighbors’ views or air flow. The grading is relatively flat, and the addition will not involve substantial elevation changes. The impervious surface area will only increase by 3% for a total hardcover of 18.3% of the lot, and no trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed addition. The proposed plan and it’s construction and use is consistent with the milieu of the neighborhood and congruent with the heart of Shoreview’s comprehensive plan. What these homeowners need for their wellness cannot be supported within the parameters of the existing zoning regulations due to the property’s orientation as defined by the city. In harmony with the intent of the zoning regulations, this variance would create and support the wellbeing of the geriatric population of this residence, a vibrant and necessary part of this community. The homeowners love living here and desire to continue to be able to do so. The variance and its construction and use provide them a reasonable solution to an accessibility problem that is not permitted by the current zoning parameters. The homeowners are pursing this variance enlarging the garage to a reasonable extent that Page 34 of 55 supports their mobility and transportation requirements while matching the atmosphere of the existing home. The variance does not impair an adequate supply of light to adjacent property. It does not increase traffic flow. It does not increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety. The variance would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to the surrounding lands or existing improvements in the neighborhood. This variance is the minimum variance needed to address and alleviate the practical difficulties. Thank you for your time and consideration. HOLMmade LLC Lic # BC754846 Po Box 1336 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Kyle Holm 847-212-1386 kyleholmmade@gmail.com Page 35 of 55 Page 36 of 55 Page 37 of 55 Page 38 of 55 Δ CL U B V A L L E Y R O A D BLOCK 3 LOT 4 WO O D D R I V E Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System (NAD 83 - 1986 adj.) V I C I N I T Y M A P N O S C A L E NO R T H Fe n c e Li n e Bo u n d a r y Li n e Fence ties are shown on the side of the boundary line that the fence is located on. SR R GN NE ENIG E D E S I E NN S US S Y R S O ER E V R P L A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PROPOSED CONDITIONS PREPARED FOR: KRISTINE BECK NO.BY DATE REVISION 1 CMT 3/25/2026 ADDED PROPOSED CONDITIONS FIELD CREW DM/SO/PH DRAWN MNM CHECKED CMT DATE 03/6/26 USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. 1 FILE NO. 1 10124-001 Hardcover Lot Area = 22,794 S.F. House Area = 2,094 S.F. Driveway Area = 731 S.F. Concrete Pad Area = 443 S.F. Pavers Area = 23 S.F. Deck Area = 153 S.F. Total Area = 3,444 S.F. Coverage = 15.1% Hennepin County Shorewood, MINNESOTA TWP:117-RGE.23-SEC.33SATHRE BERGQUIST INC. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED Lot 4, Block 3, Club Terrace. Torrens, Certificate of Title No. 1466757 STANDARD NOTES 1)Site Address: 6145 Club Valley Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 PID: 3311723430008 2)A title opinion was not furnished to the surveyor as part of this survey. Only easements per the recorded plat are shown unless otherwise denoted hereon. 3)Flood Zone Information: X (area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) and Zone AE (Areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event determined by detailed methods. Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) are shown. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements and floodplain management standards apply.) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0314F effective date of 11/04/2016 4)Parcel Area Information: Gross Area:22,794 s.f.~ 0.52 acres *We do not affirmatively insure the quantity of acreage set forth in the description 5)Benchmark: Elevations are based on MN/DOT Geodetic Station Name: GENZ which has an elevation of: 989.40 feet (NAVD88). Contours were derived from field observations. 6)Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property is R-1C (Residental) per the City of Shorewood's zoning map dated November 2025. The setback, height, and floor space area restrictions for said zoning designation were obtained from City of Shorewood found on their web site on the date of 03/06/26 and are as follows: Principal Structure Setbacks - Street(s): 35 feet (Club Valley Road) Side: Not less than 10 feet on each side nor less than 35 feet on a side yard abutting a street Rear: 40 feet Height: no structure shall exceed two and one-half stories, or 35 feet, whichever is least. *Please note that the zoning information shown hereon may have been amended through a city process. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the Zoning Administrator for the current restrictions for this site. All setback information and hardcover data for planning and design must be verified by all parties involved in the design and planning process prior to any planning or construction. We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer. 7)Utilities: We have shown the location of utilities on the surveyed property by observed evidence only. There may be underground utilities encumbering the subject property we are unaware. Please note that we have not placed a Gopher State One Call for this survey. There may or may not be underground utilities in the mapped area, therefore extreme caution must be exercise before any excavation takes place on or near this site. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilities located on the subject property. Before digging, you are required by law to notify Gopher State One Call at least 48 hours in advance at 651/454-0002. 8)Features on the site were located to the best of our ability. Due to seasonal conditions at the time of this certification additional features may not have been visible and therefore not shown hereon. SURVEY LEGEND X X WB 14000 25TH AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 120 PLYMOUTH MN 55447 (952) 476-6000 WW.SATHRE.COM I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 20th day of March, 2026. ________________________________________________________ Colyn M. Tvete, PLS Minnesota License No. 62269 ctvete@sathre.com 40102001020 SCALE IN FEET Existing Elevations Garage Floor Elevation = 982.2 First Floor Elevation = 983.7 Lookout Opening Elevation = 983.1 Proposed Elevations Proposed Garage Floor Elevation = 982.2 Proposed Hardcover Lot Area = 22,794 S.F. House Area = 2,094 S.F. Proposed Garage = 330 S.F. Driveway Area = 916 S.F. Concrete Pad Area = 660 S.F. Pavers Area = 23 S.F. Deck Area = 153 S.F. Proposed Total Area = 4,176 S.F. Proposed Coverage = 18.3% Page 39 of 55 Page 40 of 55 Page 41 of 55 Planning Commission Item 4.C. Title/Subject: 23120 Summit Ave Variance Meeting Date: June 2, 2026 Prepared By: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Attachments 1. Project Narrative 2. Survey 3. Concept Floor Plan & Architectural Elevations 4. Aerial Photos with Notes 5. Written Comment #1 Background APPLICANT: Tim O'Connor, Align Building & Remodeling, LLC / Jonathan Rienstra LOCATION: 23120 Summit Ave REVIEW DEADLINE: August 27, 2026 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential (1-2 Units Per Acre) ZONING DISTRICT: R-1C Single-Family Residential The applicants are requesting a variance from the required front yard setback to accommodate construction of an attached garage. The variance, if approved, would reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 22.7 feet. Notice of the application was sent by postcard to all property owners within 500 feet of the property and a sign was placed in front of the property in early May. Notice of the public hearing was sent by US mail to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting, and was published in the City's official newspaper, on the City's website and at City Hall. Notice of the public hearing was also distributed to residents who have signed up to receive public hearing notices through the City's website. As of the publication of this report, one written public comment has been received which is attached for reference. The existing home was built in 1987 as part of Newberg Addition. The property is 28,505 square feet (0.65 acres) in size according to Hennepin County Property Tax records, which meets the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet for the R-1C zoning district in which it is located. The property is not located in a shoreland protection zone and there are no known wetlands or floodplain on the site. While not a bluff, the subject property is situated on a significant slope which rises from west to east across the property. Countor lines are shown on the attached survey which depicts the slope for reference. Analysis City Code 1201.05, Subd. 3. a. establishes review criteria for the consideration of variance requests. These criteria are open to interpretation, and the applicants have provided a narrative outlining their request as it relates to the review criteria. Staff reviewed the request according to the criteria as follows: Page 42 of 55 Intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The applicants propose to use the property for single-family residential purposes, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. a. Reasonable: The applicants' request to construct a third stall on their attached garage on a residential property is reasonable, and is a common improvement for similar residential lots in Shorewood. With the exception of the variance to the front yard setback, the proposed garage addition would meet all other applicable City Code requirements. b. Unique Situation v. Self-Created: The property appears to be unique in shape with a narrow, almost pointed, corner lot front yard and a steep grade which significantly limits the buildable area on the site. c. Essential Character: The proposed addition does not appear to alter the essential character of the area, as there are other properties in the vicinity with reduced front yard setbacks. Additionally, the proposed garage addition would be on the street side of the home and would not substantially reduce the distance between the existing home and neighboring homes to the north or east. Economic Considerations: The applicants have not proposed the variance solely on economic considerations. Impact on Area/Public Welfare, Other Lands or Improvements: The applicants are not proposing anything that would impar an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property or increase the risk of fire. Potential drainage impacts have been reviewed by the City Engineer and the applicants' request meets all applicable City Code requirements. Drainage will also be reviewed again with the building permit application. Minimum to Alleviate Practical Difficulty: Staff finds that the proposed variance is the minimum request necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Findings/Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must acquire all necessary permits, including a building permit from the City of Shorewood, and any other jurisdiction having an interest in the site. 2. The proposed addition shall be architecturally consistent with the existing home and surrounding neighborhood. Staff acknowledges that the variance criteria are open to interpretation. Consequently, the Planning Commission could reasonably find otherwise. Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the proposed variance, take any testimony provided, and make a recommendation to the City Council based on findings of fact. Page 43 of 55 Variance Request 23120 Summit Ave, Shorewood, MN 1. Difficulty Based on Lot Constraints This property is a corner lot subject to dual front yard setback requirements along a curved street. These conditions significantly reduce the buildable area compared to a typical interior lot. In addition, the steep grade across much of the lot limits possible building locations. These combined conditions create difficulty in finding a functional garage layout without minor setback relief. Based on Hennepin County records it appears that two homes up the street on Summit Ave. also needed variances due to the grade and sharp curves of the street. Page 44 of 55 2. Reasonable Use of the Property The proposed addition of a third garage stall represents a reasonable residential use and is intended to improve the functionality of the existing home. The addition may also reduce future on-street parking and improve overall driveway usage for additional drivers, especially during snow removal season. 3. Not Self-Created The parking difficulty is not created by the current property owner. The lot configuration, including the corner orientation, dual front yard setbacks, and existing home placement, was established prior to current ownership. 4. No Reasonable Alternative Location Alternate locations for the garage addition were evaluated to comply with setback requirements. However, due to the steep grade, existing driveway configuration, and the limited buildable area caused by the dual front setbacks, no other practical location exists. The proposed location represents the only practical option. 5. Minimum Variance Necessary The proposed garage addition has been designed to be the minimum size necessary to accommodate a single additional stall. The structure is limited to approximately 276 square feet and has been positioned to minimize encroachment while maintaining usability. 6. No Impact to Neighborhood Character The proposed addition will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The scale and design are consistent with surrounding residential properties. Due to the positioning of the addition and the distance from neighboring homes, the project will not negatively impact neighbors. Please refer to photos: Page 45 of 55 Page 46 of 55 Page 47 of 55 7. No Detrimental Impact to Public Use The addition will not increase density or place additional demand on public infrastructure. It will not increase traffic congestion and may reduce on-street parking, improving safety. The project remains well below the allowable impervious surface limits for the property by more than 10%. 8. Consistency with Zoning Intent The request is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. It allows reasonable use of a uniquely constrained property while maintaining compliance with all other zoning requirements. Page 48 of 55 S Sanitary Manhole rim=997.57 HHandholeCatch Basin rim=998.83Sign Mmailbox Mmailbox Light Pole G F 1 0 1 4 . 0 Ccped 9"" pine 1006.3 1006.2 1006.9 W Well 1004.1 WO 100 6 . 5 12"" ash1010.4 18"" ash 1010.1 9"" basswood 1010.0 13"" chestnut1009.8 18"" oak 1008.2 15"" oak1008.0 17"" oak 1008.0 16"" oak1007.716"" oak1007.8 1007.1 FFE 1016. 1 1014.1 1015.6 13"" maple 1012.0 16"" ash 1011.5 11"" oak1011.1 10"" ash 1011.4 1019.3 1017.6 E E l e c . M e t e r A / C 1015.4 1015.1 1015.1 1017.9 1017.7 17"" ash 1017.9 6"" maple1016.5 6"" maple 1016.6 21"" walnut1012.6 1013.4 1014.5 1010.8 1011.4 1005.9 G G a s M e t e r 1009.0 1006.7 996.4 1009.1 24.3 2 4 . 0 12.7 9.0 8.5 9.0 2.8 5 . 0 2.56 . 2 2.5 5 . 2 17.2 4 . 9 20.0 6.1 10.0 4.7 2 7 . 9 S 65°2 4 ' 3 6 " W 1 1 7 . 3 1 N 1 1 ° 5 1 ' 2 1 " E 1 8 3 . 4 5 S 2 9 ° 2 8 ' 3 6 " W 2 1 3 . 4 4 m e a s u r e d S 85°25'56" W 103.48 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 10 0 8 10 0 6 10 0 4 10 0 2 10 0 0 99 8 99 6 99 4 99 2 99 0 98 8 98 6 10 1 8101610141012 10 1 2 10 1 0 10081006 10 1 4 1016 10 1 8 (2 1 3 . 5 8 P l a t ) (118 P l a t ) 10 1 0 1 0 1 0 10 3 5 . 5 17'8" 6'7" 9'4 "13'0" 14 ' 0 " 1'10" 14 ' 0 " 20'0" 30.2 23'0" 1 2 ' 0 " 1 2 ' 0 " 2 2 . 7 M e t a l F e n c e T r e e l i n e T r e e l i n e T r e e l i n e T r e e l i n e B i t u m i n o u s B i t u m i n o u s B i t u m i n o u s Pa v e r s tw1017.4bw1016.2 Summ i t A v e n u e Mu r r a y H i l l R o a d W a l l - r o c k Resi d e n c e No. 2 3 1 2 0 L= 8 4 . 2 1 m e a s R= 4 5 . 0 0 =10 7 ° 1 3 ' 3 3 " m e a s B i t u m i n o u s Overh a n gP a v e r s (L= 8 3 . 5 9 P l a t ) (=10 6 ° 2 5 ' 4 2 " P l a t ) Drainage & Utility Easement Ne i g h b o r ' s D r i v e w a y Edge of bituminous 1 foot West of Lot Corner T r e e l i n e E d g e o f B i t u m i n o u s Prop o s e d Addit i o n Prop o s e d Deck D e c k Propo s e d Gara g e Drivew a y F:\survey\newberg add - hennepin\2-1 newberg add\01 Surveying - 91343\01 CAD\01 Source\01 Survey Base.dwg Basis for bearings is assumed Surveyors Certificate 000.0 x000.0 Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Found Iron Monument Denotes Proposed Contours Denotes Existing Contours NOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. Benchmark: MNDOT GSID Station #10197 elevation = 972.34 feet NAVD88 Drawn By Signed Gregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 Scale: 1" = 30' F.B.No. Project No.I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota rev Address: Legal Description 7601 73rd Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 (763) 560-3093 DemarcInc.com 91343A - Site Plan Survey For: 23120 Summit Ave Shorewood, MN 55331 Surveyed this 8th day of April 2026. ALIGN BUILDING & REMODELING Lot 2, Block 1, NEWBERG ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota Property located in Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota Property Zoned As: R-1C Single-Family Residential District Setbacks: Front: 35' Corner Side: 35' Interior Side: 10' Rear: 40' Existing Hardcover Lot Area 28,496 sq ft Building 1,551 sq ft Deck 68 sq ft Wall-block 12 sq ft Steps 18 sq ft Deck 32 sq ft Pavers 391 sq ft Driveway 3,253 sq ft Deck 613 sq ft Pavers 102 sq ft Total 6,040 sq ft Percentage 21.20% Proposed Hardcover Lot Area 28,496 sq ft Building 1,551 sq ft Pavers 391 sq ft Driveway 3,253 sq ft Pavers 102 sq ft Prop-Addition 193 sq ft Prop-Deck 475 sq ft Prop-Garage 276 sq ft Prop-Driveway 250 sq ft Total 6,491 sq ft Percentage 22.78% 04/20/2026 Garage Addition 04/28/2026 Driveway Addition Page 49 of 55 Page 50 of 55 Page 51 of 55 Page 52 of 55 Page 53 of 55 Page 54 of 55 Page 55 of 55