Loading...
05-05-2026 Planning Comm Mtg MinutesCITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2026 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Longo, Magistad, and Braithwaite; Planning Director Griffiths; Planner Osowski; and Council Liaison Maddy Absent: Commissioner Holker APPROVAL OF AGENDA Magistad moved, Longo seconded, approving the agenda for May 5, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 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. 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT PLAN Applicant: Merle Steinkraus Location: 25485 State Highway 7 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. OTHER BUSINESS – 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 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. 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 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 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. REPORTS City Council Council Liaison Maddy gave a brief overview of recent Council discussions and decisions. 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. Commission There were no comments from the Commission. ADJOURNMENT Magistad moved, Longo seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 2026, at 9:14 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.