## CITY OF SHOREWOOD ## PLANNING COMMISSION ## MAY 5, 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) April 7, 2026 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) 25485 State Highway 7 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan ## 5. OTHER BUSINESS ## A) Discuss Zoning Code Update ## 6. REPORTS ## A) City Council ## B) Staff ## C) Commission ## 7. ADJOURN Page 1 of 57 Page 2 of 57 Planning Commission Item 2.A. ## Title/Subject: April 7, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ## Meeting Date: May 5, 2026 ## Prepared By: Sheila Van Sloun, Administrative Assistant ## Attachments ## 1. PC.04.07.2026 ## Background Draft minutes from the April 7, 2026 Planning Commission meeting are attached. ## Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to approve the April 7, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Page 3 of 57 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS ## PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ## TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 2026 7:00 P.M. ## MINUTES ## CALL TO ORDER Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ## ROLL CALL ## Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Holker, Longo, and Braithwaite; Planning Director ## Griffiths; City Planner Osowski; and Council Liaison Maddy ## Absent: Commissioner Magistad ## 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Huskins noted that Item 5.A. will be removed due to Commissioner Magistad's absence. Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Braithwaite seconded, approving the agenda for April 7, 2026, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. ## 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ## • March 3, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Huskins stated that before the meeting, he found a single edit and shared it with the Staff, and the item will be corrected. Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 3, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. ## 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments. ## 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE ## 5. OTHER BUSINESS ## A. Planning Commission Photo ## B. 2026 Planning Commission Work Plan Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Work Plan was discussed in detail at the last meeting. The plan was put together, and there were no significant changes from the Staff between the two meetings. He added that the Staff is seeking approval of a recommendation to the City Council on the 2026 Work Plan. Page 4 of 57 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 2 of 6 Chair Huskins shared that he was not present at the last meeting, so he is relying on the Commissioners who were present to ensure the plan reflects what was discussed. Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Longo seconded, recommending approval of the 2026 Work Plan. Motion passed 4/0. ## C. Planning Commission Bylaws Planner Osowski summarized the Commission’s bylaws as found in the Agenda Packet. He noted the new information about the Commissioner Liaison at the Council meetings, Matters From The Floor, and alternated Commissioners. He stated that the Youth Commissioner was not included in this draft of the bylaws. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the language used for the Alternate Commissioner was taken from that used by most other cities in the Metro area. He added that the Alternate would fill in in the case that someone was gone from a meeting and then step back down. If someone left the Commission, then the Alternate could step into their place. He stated that Staff is looking for a recommendation to the Council. The Park Commission is also close to finalizing its bylaws, and both could go to the City Council at the same time. Chair Huskins stated that the Commissioner Liaison to the City Council would be in attendance and then provide any information if asked. He asked whether a Commissioner in attendance who wanted to speak could do so. Planning Director Griffiths explained that, on page 22 of the Agenda Packet, language was added to allow a Commissioner to speak if they wish. He added that Staff will finish their presentation and then turn it over to the Liaison for the meeting. Chair Huskins stated that many matters come before Commissioner’s that are not decided at meetings, and that discussions can take place before those meetings. He noted that leaving it to the Alternate Commissioner to decide whether to attend the meeting could be problematic, as the Commissioner would not have all the information from previous discussions. Planning Director Griffiths shared that, in conversations with other cities, they strongly recommended allowing the Alternate Commissioner to choose whether to attend the meeting, as it was logistically challenging to have the Alternate there. He added that the Alternate Commissioner will receive all the same information the Commissioners receive, such as the Staff Reports and meeting minutes. He noted that the Staff is open to whatever direction the Commission takes. Commissioner Holker stated that it is the Alternate's commitment to read all the material, as it is now, when someone misses a meeting. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the language in the draft states that the Alternate Commissioner’s presence may not be needed at every meeting, but that the Alternate Commissioner is expected to stay up to date on the business of the meetings. Chair Huskins added that the language in the draft is sufficient, but the information may need to be reviewed if revisiting a topic discussed at a previous meeting. Planning Director Griffiths pointed out that the Staff is always willing to step in and meet with the Alternate at the end of a longer project, if asked, to make a decision. He explained that, as the bylaws are reviewed annually, if something is not working with the Alternate, it can always be changed. An Alternate Commissioner would not be brought in until next year, but if approved this year, some of the City Code would be rewritten and submitted as an amendment at the end of the year for approval. Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Braithwaite seconded, recommending approval of the Planning Commission bylaws as presented. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Huskins asked when the matter would go before the Council. Planning Director Griffiths stated it would be either April 27 or May 11, depending on the Park Commission. Page 5 of 57 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 3 of 6 ## D. 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Project Overview Planning Director Griffiths noted that this item was for discussion purposes only. He gave an overview of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Project as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Huskins asked the question: What is the state of Shorewood today, and if there was any looking back at where the City was in the past. Planning Director Griffiths added that looking back is a big part of the Plan, and the consulting firm is currently doing that work to establish where the community has been and where it is now. Planning Director Griffiths continued with the presentation of the memo as found in the Agenda Packet. Chair Huskins noted that the plan would include an opportunity for community engagement. He asked if, in the past, the residents had taken up their responsibility or opportunity to participate. He noted that it is the community’s only opportunity to share its input. Planning Director Griffiths stated that because he was not in Shorewood at the time, he may defer to others who were. He added that, in the past, engagement and open houses were poorly attended. For this cycle of the Comprehensive Plan, the Staff proposes a robust community engagement plan. He shared that the first year of the project will focus on community engagement before deciding what the plan will look like. Chair Huskins noted that, with the Watten Ponds decision, many community members felt the decisions made were not aligned with the current Comprehensive Plan. To avoid the same problem in the future, the more community input on the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, the better, fostering ownership of the plan. Planning Director Griffiths stated that with more community buy-in, there is greater success. Council Liaison Maddy shared that he was on the Planning Commission when the last Comprehensive Plan was completed, and the input received came from people already involved with the City. As a City of 8,000, the Staff needs to find a way to get more than 10-15 people to share their thoughts. He noted that he does not know the solution to increase involvement, but that it needs to be done, as involvement was lackluster 10 years ago. Chair Huskins stated that it does not seem right not to get the community input, then put out a plan and communicate that plan to the community. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the next time this is on the agenda, the Staff will really hit on the plans that they have to get community engagement. Planning Director Griffiths shared the Regional Planning Cycle issued by the Met Council. He added that there is a city or the Met Council that is always talking about the topics of a comprehensive plan. Any decision that the City makes will fit into the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that there are two new sections with Climate and Natural Systems. The Met Council has requirements for the City: within residential districts where single-family homes are allowed, the City must allow one additional housing type. An example is the R1-A housing district, which consists only of single-family homes; the City is required to allow an additional housing type. He added that how the Met Council calculates the requirements will change, and he will have to go through to put the new plan together. Planning Director Griffiths stated that engagement efforts will be made to reach everyone. He continued to review the memo in the Agenda Packet. He noted that Staff hopes to have the plan ready by 2027 and reviewed the plan's phases. He explained the approval process of the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Huskins asked whether residents would have the opportunity to provide input after the other entities have had their input. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it would depend on the Page 6 of 57 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 4 of 6 suggested changes. He added that if the Met Council changes anything, another public hearing must be held, and the whole process starts over. Commissioner Holker noted that the Met Council can tell the City exactly what needs to be in the plan, and then the public hearings would be telling the community that it has to be done this way because the Met Council is requiring it. Planning Director Griffiths shared that this is why the last Comprehensive Plan, which was supposed to be completed in 2018, was not completed until 2023, which is somewhat typical. Chair Huskins stated that the State Legislature could also change things. Planning Director Griffiths shared that indicators suggest there will likely be no major changes this session, but there could certainly be something that comes up in State law. Planning Director Griffiths explained where things would go from that meeting with the Comprehensive Plan. There is a website that will launch before May 1, as well as an article in the City Newsletter. He added that the Commission is the steering committee for the plan and will have many opportunities to get involved. He asked that the Commission be an advocate for the project. Chair Huskins stated that the overview was very clear and helpful to know where things are going before the project gets started. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the project website will be a great resource for all the questions. He encouraged Commissioners and residents to reach out with any questions as well. ## E. 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Community Engagement Plan Planning Director Griffiths shared the Draft Plan for Public Engagement as found in the Agenda Packet. He noted that the document was high-level and intended as a resource for the Staff. Planning Director Griffiths asked whether any audience portions of the document were missing. Chair Huskins shared that within the Interest Groups, there are also citizen websites that share many opinions on decisions. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, in the Draft Plan, Interest Groups are defined and should be heard from, regardless of the platform. Chair Huskins added that it seems as though neighbors are taking advantage of a website where others agree with them, and that it could be a way to gauge what residents are saying without having to ask for input. Commissioner Braithwaite explained that an inventory of the Interest Groups would reflect what the groups are interested in, and those websites are for the audience. He noted that those who fall into the Interest Groups may also fall into other categories, and that the information may be repeated. Even have a voluntary registration. Chair Huskins shared that being invited to those parts of the community who do not regularly attend meetings and letting residents know they can provide information however they prefer. He added that asking those residents how they feel would be a good way to convey the information they want to share. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff plans to be very intentional in inviting residents to share information, as it works best for them. Chair Huskins shared that meeting residents where they are, rather than requiring them to come to the City, would be very helpful. Commissioner Longo stated that looking at the City beyond its geographic boundaries is important, and he has seen this in various things in the past. Planning Director Griffiths continued with the engagement approach as found in the Agenda Packet. Page 7 of 57 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 5 of 6 Chair Huskins shared that when there is a project, the City will go to the community with a blank slate before any plan is started. Some people like that, but others do not, noting that some may not participate in the early phase. He added that more information about where things are will cause those people to interact and provide feedback. At different stages of the project, people will feel more engaged, and the City needs to recognize that there will be different types of respondents. Planning Director Griffiths shared engagement strategies as found in the document in the Agenda Packet. He noted that there are interactive maps that residents can engage with. Chair Huskins asked whether the contributor could be identified to ensure they are a member of the community. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the person would have to verify they are a Shorewood resident and that, typically, there has been no outside involvement. He added that responses to the interactive map would likely come from a specific geographic region. Planning Director Griffiths continued to discuss upcoming events that would include information on the Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in the Agenda Packet. Commissioner Holker asked whether a table could be set up during voting, as much of the track is in the Community Center that day. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it has not been looked into, but will be. If it is allowed by law, then that would be a great place to have a table. Commissioner Longo noted thinking about community champions who could be on a list to email when the Staff is headed to an event. Those champions could also host things within their own neighborhoods, where someone from the City could come to talk about the plan. Chair Huskins offered that, as the conversation is decentralized, there should be a booklet as to what is being said about the plan so that everyone is saying the same things. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the consultant will provide a “Meeting in a Box,” an opportunity for those doing engagement work or for staff who need to meet with a group; a preset meeting will be available to use. Planning Director Griffiths shared information about the scheduled City Meetings, as outlined in the Agenda Packet. He added that the Staff will attend any meeting, are willing to go places, and that office hours will also be available. He noted that not everything will work, but with as many ideas as possible, it will lead to what is working. He explained how the communications will take place. Word of mouth is the greatest way to inform people of what is going on. Chair Huskins shared that, after an event, when there is a summary of what was discussed, it will also be helpful to note how many people participated. It also builds momentum; when others see that people are participating, it may lead other residents to participate as well. Planning Director Griffiths shared that this is not the level of engagement the City has undertaken for other projects and may be the most engagement ever for a single project. He is confident there will be many more touchpoints with people in the community. Planning Director Griffiths continued with the presentation of the engagement plan as found in the Agenda Packet. He pointed out the schedule for the community engagement. Chair Huskins asked whether the outreaches would cover all areas included in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Director Griffiths stated that they would be. He noted that with a big plan like this, it is really important to keep the focus on what is tangible for residents, and much of that is the vision work. The goals that emerge from the vision discussion will be turned into policies. Chair Huskins stated that as the project continues, some topics may be highlighted more Page 8 of 57 ## CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ## APRIL 7, 2026 Page 6 of 6 than others, so certain events may need to be tailored to those topics. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff will try to be adaptable, so if they find that one topic needs more feedback, they will focus on it. He added that if there is a lot of feedback on one thing, it needs to be focused on. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Staff is looking for a recommendation on the Community Engagement Plan. Commissioner Holker asked whether it would be possible to include the motion, subject to revision, as more information is learned. Planning Director Griffiths explained that at the end of each phase, the Staff will bring back an engagement summary. So, the motion does not need to include that as the Staff already plans to be open to revision based on the summaries at a minimum. Commissioner Holker moved, Commissioner Longo seconded, recommending adoption of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Community Engagement Plan, incorporating feedback from the meeting. Motion passed 4/0. ## 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 May meeting, there will be a PUD concept plan with a public hearing, and the consultant will be there to review the draft Zoning Code update. Commissioner Holker noted that she would not be at the May meeting. Planning Director Griffiths asked for a Liaison for the April 27 Council meeting. Commissioner Longo volunteered. ## C. Commission Chair Huskins shared that attending the webinar on Land Use was excellent and very helpful. He shared that he has a copy of the webinar if anyone would like it. Planning Director Griffiths shared that the League of Minnesota offers many great resources. ## 7. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 7, 2026, at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. Page 9 of 57 Planning Commission Item 4.A. Title/Subject: 25485 State Highway 7 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan ## Meeting Date: May 5, 2026 ## Prepared By: Aaron Osowski, Planner ## Attachments ## 1. Site Location Map ## 2. Project Narrative ## 3. Existing Survey ## 4. Civil Plans ## 5. Zoning Map 6. Floorplan and Elevations ## 7. Tree Preservation Worksheet ## 8. Excelsior Fire District Comments ## 9. MN Rules 1309.0313 Townhouse Fire Sprinklers ## 10. MSFC Appendix D Fire Apparatus Access Roads ## 11. Engineering Dept Comments ## 12. MNDOT Comments ## 13. MNDNR Comments 14. Public Comment 1 15. Public Comment 2 16. Public Comment 3 ## Background ## • APPLICANT: Merle Steinkraus • LOCATION: 25485 Highway 7 • REVIEW DEADLINE: July 23, 2026 ## • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential (1-2 Units Per Acre) ## • CURRENT ZONING: R-1A - Single-Family Residential/Shoreland ## • PROPOSED ZONING: PUD - Planned Unit Development/Shoreland ## REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan to construct two three-unit townhome buildings at 25485 Highway 7. Each townhome wouldbe an individual lot for purchase, and would be managed by a homeowners association, which would own the proposed common space on the east of the lot. This application would require both a rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The applicant’s narrative and plans are attached for review. Notice of the application was sent by postcard to all property owners within 750 feet of the property and a sign was also placed in front of the property. Notice of the public meeting was sent by US mail to all property owners within 750 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to Page 10 of 57 the meeting and published in the City’s official newspaper, on the City’s website and at City Hall. These notices included several properties located in the City of Chanhassen on the south side of Highway 7 since they fell within the 750 feet public notification area. As of the publication of this report, three public comments have been received regarding this request, which are included in the meeting packet. ## BACKGROUND The subject property is roughly 1 acre and is a part of the Meeker’s Outlots to Excelsior Addition, which was originally developed in 1900. The original single-family home on the lot was demolished in a controlled burn last year by the Excelsior Fire District. The site has an existing private driveway off of Eureka Road and is served by municipal sewer and a private well for water. Municipal water is available just to the north at the intersection of Eureka Road and Park Lane, and the applicant would be required to extend the water main and connect to city water as part of this project. The site is surrounded by medium density single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods to the north and west. The southern property line is adjacent to State Highway 7. A majority of the property is located within a Shoreland Protection Zone due to its proximity to Lake Minnewashta to the south. There are no known wetlands for floodplain on the site. ## ANALYSIS Requests for PUD Concept Plans are part of the legislative role of the Planning Commission and City Council. These types of requests have rules that apply broadly and have the most discretionary review. The general concept plan stage of a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing their basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. At this point in the development process, there will be many comments and questions about the project, as it is in a very early conceptual stage. Further details will be finalized in the PUD Development and Final Stage Plans if the developer chooses to move forward with their project. ## Relation to Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan guides the site for low density residential housing at a range of 1 to 2 units per acre. Under the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning requirements for the property, a single-family home could be built on the property today without any additional City approvals beyond a building permit. The applicant’s request provides for 6 homes on approximately 1 acre of land, which has a density of 6 units per acre, meaning they would need to pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment. When considering how the proposal ties in with the surrounding developments, the Walnut Grove Villas to the north are comprised of 14 homes on 6.36 acres, or a density of 2.2 units per acre. The Shorewood Ponds development to the west is comprised of 62 attached townhome units on 14.86 acres, or a density of 4.17 units per acre. ## Planned Unit Development (PUD): The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned from R-1A to a PUD and have proposed setbacks based on the R-3A zoning district. This zoning district is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, as the Walnut Grove Villas to the north and Shorewood Ponds to the west both feature similar reduced setbacks and denser residential development. As with any concept plan, the applicant will need to create more detailed plans if the project moves forward; however, the request conceptually meets the requirements of the R-3A zoning district with the following setbacks: Page 11 of 57 • Front: 30 ft. • Rear: 30 ft. • Side: 15 ft. • Side (abutting street): 30 ft. ## Street Access & Traffic: The lot will have one access point off Eureka Road through a private road, slightly farther away from Highway 7 than the existing driveway. MnDOT is currently planning improvements to Highway 7 that could impact access at the Highway 7/Eureka Road intersection. This construction is planned for 2029 and may affect rights-of-way for this lot. As part of MnDOT’s comments on this application, they requested the applicant coordinate with the City and MnDOT. The applicant has already agreed to dedicate roughly 12 feet of right-of-way along Eureka Road to the City to bring the western property line in alignment with the lot to the north of it. To date, City staff have received three written comments on the potential traffic impacts of this application, with residents stating that the Highway 7/Eureka Road intersection is already congested and dangerous. ## Utilities: The lot is currently served by a private well for drinking water and would be required to connect to the municipal water system as part of this project. A minimum 8” diameter watermain shall be extended to the site at the applicant’s cost from the Eureka Road/Park Lane intersection to the north. Sanitary sewer is available within the right-of-way of Eureka Road, and a minimum 8” diameter sanitary sewer shall be extended from Eureka Road, also at the applicant's cost. ## Tree Preservation The site features 52 significant trees, of which 21 are proposed to be removed for this project. The applicant is required to replant 8 trees but is proposing to plant 15 trees to create a buffer from Highway 7 and Eureka Road. The redeveloped site would have 6 fewer trees than current conditions after accounting for these planted trees. ## Stormwater Runoff & Impervious Surface Coverage The property lies mostly within a Shoreland Protection Zone, and the maximum allowable impervious surface coverage is 27.9% of the lot’s area when factoring in the area of the lot that is inside and outside of the Shoreland Protection Zone. The applicant is proposing to deviate from this maximum with an impervious surface coverage of 31.1%. They have plans to construct a stormwater infiltration pond on the east side of the property. The City Engineer noted that the soil type for this site (HSG C/D) may not be suitable for infiltration and requested that they provide a soil report for the site to confirm whether this is feasible. ## Fire Access Because the total length of the property’s drive lane is only 120 feet, they are not required by fire code to install a turnaround for fire trucks (fire code only requires these for drive lanes that are 150 feet or longer). Page 12 of 57 After comments from the Excelsior Fire District, the applicant added a fire hydrant to the east end of the drive lane and stated that all buildings would have internal fire suppression sprinklers installed. ## Future Applications: As with any concept plan, if the project moves forward the applicant will need to prepare detailed plans including a stormwater management plan, drainage plan, tree preservation plan, etc. To complete the City review process, the applicant must apply for and receive approval of the following applications and related agreements: ## • PUD Development & Final Stage Plan • Comprehensive Plan Amendment (from Low Density Residential to Medium Density ## Residential) ## • Rezoning Request (from R-1A to PUD) ## • Preliminary and Final Plat ## FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION Given the nature of the applicant’s proposal, the City has legislative discretion regarding this request. Therefore, City staff will defer to the direction of the Planning Commission and City Council regarding whether or not the concept plan should be approved or denied. If the Commission would like to recommend approval to the City Council, City staff would recommend that the conditions included below be made a part of its recommendation. 1. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be added along property lines. 2. Applicant shall provide revised survey of existing property conditions to include easement and title information. 3. Applicant shall provide information on snow removal and landscaping responsibilities. 4. Applicant shall provide information verifying that delivery vehicles will be able to turn around within the private drive and not back onto Eureka Rd. 5. Applicant shall consider additional landscaping and buffering between the site and Highway 7 similar to the Shorewood Ponds development to the west. 6. Applicant shall address all remaining staff comments as part of future submissions. 7. With future phases of development, the applicant shall submit all application materials required as part of the PUD Development & Final Stage Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment subject to City Code requirements. 8. The applicant shall provide HOA documents for the future townhome association to accommodate the applicant’s proposal. 9. The approval of the PUD Concept Plan shall expire in 180 days if the applicant has not submitted a complete application for PUD Development Plan & Final Stage Plan, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, except that the applicant may request an extension of the approval subject to City Code 1201.25 Subd. 6. c. (5). ## Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the proposed PUD Concept Plan, take any testimony provided, and make a recommendation to the City Council. Page 13 of 57 952-960-7900 cityhall@shorewoodmn.gov 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 shorewoodMN.gov ## LOCATION MAP Page 14 of 57 5305 Wooddale Ave, Edina, MN 55424 Phone: (612) 220-0152 www.elliottdesignbuild.com March 20 th , 2026 ## RE: 25485 Hwy 7 Development Concept Plan Project Narrative ## Background The subject property at 25485 Hwy 7 Shorewood, is a 1.01 acre lot currently zoned as R-1A Residential. There was a single-family house which has been demolished. There is a range of property types surrounding the subject lot. The property to the north was recently rezoned to a PUD with 14 single-family homes. The property to the west of Eureka Rd is a townhome development with several quadrominiums. The subject property is the leftover single-family lot that has not developed for higher density. The city has indicated that the west property line must be adjusted so there is 60’ of right-of-way along Eureka Rd. This concept plan was designed assuming the west property line was moved in line with the new property line for the development to the north. Elliott Design Build has prepared this concept plan submittal on behalf of the property owners to rezone to a PUD and construct two triplexes. ## Proposed Development The proposed development consists of two three-unit structures for a total of six units. The units are two stories, each with a 1,460 sf footprint. Each unit has a two-car garage with 2 guest parking stalls provided in front of the garage. Vehicle access would be provided off of Eureka Rd with a 25’ entrance and a 30’ wide drive aisle between the buildings. The proposed layout leaves a large common area in the southeast of the site which could be used as a recreation area. The subject property would be subdivided into 6 individual lots for each unit, with common space owned and managed by an HOA. The HOA would handle ongoing maintenance of the shared space and landscaping. The existing watermain ends around the intersection of Eureka Rd and Park Ln. This would need to be extended to provide water for the development. Sanitary sewer would also need to be installed. Stormwater would be managed by an infiltration basin in the east to capture and treat runoff in order to meet city and watershed stormwater requirements. Healthy and significant trees were tagged and identified by Stephen Mastey, PLA on 2/3/2026. Dead, damaged, or insignificant trees were not tagged. There are currently 52 healthy and significant trees on the property mostly clustered along the north side. The site layout is designed to minimize the impact on the trees. 21 trees are currently proposed to be removed. Per zoning code no more than 8 trees per acre can be required to be replaced and this scenario meets that requirement, but more than 8 trees would be replaced to provide sufficient screening along Hwy 7 and Eureka Rd. The southern portion of the site is within 1,000 ft of Lake Minnewashta. This portion is within the shoreland protection zone. The maximum allowable impervious is calculated using the weighted Page 15 of 57 5305 Wooddale Ave, Edina, MN 55424 Phone: (612) 220-0152 www.elliottdesignbuild.com average of area in the shoreland protection zone. Maximum impervious for this site is approximately 28% assuming the west property line is adjusted. The proposed hardcover for the site is 31%. Additional impervious allowance is requested for the development. ## Neighborhood Fit The lot is currently designated as low density residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning would allow for medium density development which fits with the surrounding land uses: medium density townhomes to the west and a low-density PUD to the north. The goal of this development is to provide a transition between Hwy 7 and the minimal density residential homes further north along Eureka Rd. These multi-family structures would increase the variety of housing options in the city and provide ownership opportunities at a more attainable price point. This housing type would appeal to young professionals trying to live in Shorewood and residents looking to downsize while staying in the area. ## PUD We are requesting the land be rezoned to a PUD for this development. The city has indicated that additional right-of-way may be needed along Eureka Rd and Hwy 7. Altering lot boundaries would impact setbacks, minimum lot area, and maximum impervious surface area. As the boundary line of the lot is uncertain, rezoning to a PUD would allow for greater flexibility during the design process. The site was designed to meet R-3A setbacks. ## Contacts • Civil Engineer – Lance Elliott, P.E. – Elliott Design Build Inc. (612) 220-0152 • Surveyor – Frank Cardarelle, RLS – Frank Cardarelle Land Surveying (952) 941-3031 We look forward to working with City staff, the planning commission, and the city council as this project moves forward. ## Sincerely, Lance Elliott, P.E. ## Civil Engineer Page 16 of 57 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 990 991 992 985 990 984 986 987 988 989 991 990 990 990 991 990 991 985 990 986 987 988 989 991 3.1% 5.8% 2.8% 2.5% 2.0% 3.0% 4.7% 4.4% ## FRANK CARDARELLE ## LAND SURVEYING ##  :OODDALE AVE ## EDINA MN  ## %US  ## EMAILCARDARELLELS#GMAILCOM ## I +ERE%Y CERTIFY T+AT T+IS SURVEY ## :AS PREPARED %Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND T+AT I AM ADULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORUNDER T+E LA:S OF T+E STATE OFMINNESOTAFRANK R CARDARELLE REG NO DATE  ## PREPARED FOR ## MERLE STEINKRAUS ## CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ##  +:Y  ## S+ORE:OOD MN  ## REVISION ## Nƒ ## DATE ## DRA:N %Y ## % PASSOLT ## C+ECKED %Y ## F CARDARELLE ## DATE  ## PAGE N ## R ## PRO-ECT  ## C ## REV  ##  OF  ## SI=E ; Page 17 of 57 990 991 992 985 990 984 986 987 988 989 991 990 990 990 991 990 991 985 990 986 987 988 989 991 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 60.0 75.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 75.2 75.2 34.2 30.0 30.0 54.0 90.0 54.0 90.0 ## PREPARED FOR ## KIST STEINKRAUS DEVELOPMENT LLC ## CONCEPT PLAN ##  +:Y  ## S+ORE:OOD MN  ## REVISION ## Nƒ ## DATE ## DRA:N %Y ## % PASSOLT ## C+ECKED %Y ## DATE ## PA*E N ## R ## PRO-ECT  ## REV  ## SI=E ; ## PRELIMINARY ## NOT FOR ## CONSTRUCTION ## L ELLIOTT  ## E ##  OF  ## ELLIOTT DESI*N %UILD ##  OLIVER AVE S ## MINNEAPOLIS MN  ## %US   ## EMAIL INFO#ELLIOTTDESI*N%UILDCOM Page 18 of 57 990 991 992 985 990 984 986 987 988 989 991 990 990 990 991 990 991 985 990 986 987 988 989 991 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ## PREPARED FOR ## KIST STEINKRAUS DEVELOPMENT LLC ## TREE INVENTORY ##  +:Y  ## S+ORE:OOD MN  ## REVISION ## Nƒ ## DATE ## DRA:N %Y ## % PASSOLT ## C+ECKED %Y ## DATE ## PA*E N ## R ## PRO-ECT  ## REV ## SI=E ; ## PRELIMINARY ## NOT FOR ## CONSTRUCTION ## L ELLIOTT  ## E ##  OF  ## ELLIOTT DESI*N %UILD ##  OLIVER AVE S ## MINNEAPOLIS MN  ## %US   ## EMAIL INFO#ELLIOTTDESI*N%UILDCOM  Page 19 of 57 ## R-1 ## A ## R-1 ## A ## R-1C ## R-1 ## A ## PUD ## R-1 ## A Page 20 of 57 Page 21 of 57 Page 22 of 57 Page 23 of 57 Page 24 of 57 Page 25 of 57 Page 26 of 57 Page 27 of 57 Page 28 of 57 ## PREPARED BY: ## LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC. ## STEPHEN MASTEY,  LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ## 202 Water Street, Suite 209 ## EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ## P. 651.246.1151 ## EMAIL : STEPHEN@LANDARCINC.COM ## PROJECT SITE: 25485 Hwy 7 ## Shorewood, MN 55331 ## TREE INVENTORY 2/3/2026Page 1 of 3 Page 29 of 57 ## Tree Tag # ## Size (" dbh) ## Common NameScientific NameNotes ## 110,10,10 Apple Tree Malus species clump (3) /declining 210Green AshFraxinus pennsylvanica 39Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 49Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 58Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 610Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 718HackberryCeltis occidentalis 811Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 914Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1022Black WalnutJuglans nigra 118Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 128Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1311Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1410Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1511Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1613Elm Ulmus americana 1716Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1815Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 1913Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2016Black WalnutJuglans nigra 219Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2213Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2310Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2411Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2511Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2610Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2710Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2813Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2918Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3012Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 319Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3213Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3315Elm Ulmus americana 3418Black WalnutJuglans nigra 359Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3612Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 379Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 2/3/2026Page 2 of 3 Page 30 of 57 ## Tree Tag # ## Size (" dbh) ## Common NameScientific NameNotes 3812Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 3910Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4010Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4110Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 429Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4310Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 449Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4510Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 469Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 479Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 488Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 4911Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 509Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 5114Black WalnutJuglans nigra 5226Red Maple Acer rubrum ## City Arborist Notes: Boxelder, Cottonwood and Willow Trees shall NOT be considered to be significant trees in the City of Shorewood. 2/3/2026Page 3 of 3 Page 31 of 57 February 9, 2026 ## Elliott ## 5305 Wooddale Ave ## Edina, MN 55424 ## Re: 25485 Highway 7 Project ## Dear Applicant, I have reviewed the plans for the three unit Townhouse project in Shorewood. Please make sure that the following issues are addressed as you complete your project. The list below is based on review of the plans received by the City of Shorewood, but not limited to, the review of future submitted plans, tests conducted, or items found during the construction process. ## General • Provide a construction/project timeline to the Excelsior Fire District. • Provide emergency contact information for the project to the Excelsior Fire District. ## Fire Prevention and Safety • The townhomes are required to have a Fire Sprinkler System installed. ## Minnesota Administrative Rules ## 1309.0313 SECTION R313, AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in townhouses. ## Exceptions: 1. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required to be installed in a two-unit townhouse, unless required by section R313.4. 2. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required when additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire sprinkler system installed. ## Excelsior Fire District In partnership with the Communities of: ## Deephaven-Excelsior-Greenwood-Shorewood-Tonka Bay ## 24100 Smithtown Road ## Shorewood, MN. 55331  kmurphyringate@excelsiorfire.org 952-960-1692 Page 32 of 57 • The Access Road must meet the requirements of MSFC Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads. The Excelsior Fire District requires narrative and plans that reflect the requirements of Minnesota State Fire Code, Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads. o Include sections D103.1 Access Road width with a hydrant in the narrative. • Notify the Excelsior Fire District if propane will be used to heat the town homes while they are under construction. Propane tanks and storage must follow NFPA 58 2017 Edition and other affiliated codes and standards. • Construction site fire extinguishers must be at least 4.5-pounds, shall be mounted and/or secure from tipping, be in plain sight, and assessable during construction. A fire extinguisher is required for each building under construction. • Construction site fire extinguisher(s) must have a current inspection tag and be assessable at all times. • Only combustible storage related to construction should be allowed on site. • Only the amount of gasoline, propane, or other fuels related to construction are allowed to be stored on site. ## Future Plan Submissions • Plan reviews require 14 business days to review from the date the plans, hydraulic calculations, data sheets, and other required documents are received by the Excelsior Fire District. All items listed above must be received before the plans are reviewed. o Note: The Excelsior Fire District will keep the items mentioned above for our records. o Plans from all five cities are reviewed in the order they are received and not by the size of the job or square footage of the building. ## Emergency Vehicles Access • Access for emergency vehicles must be maintained at all times. • “No Parking Fire Lane ” signs must meet the requirements of Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Road of the Minnesota State Fire Code. • Paint all the Fire Lane curbs yellow. • To always assure access for Fire Apparatus and other emergency vehicles, please advise, concrete companies, vendors, sub-contractors , delivery companies, and landscapers not to block access to the site or any hydrants regardless of their location. ## During Construction • The dumpster(s) must be placed per the Minnesota State Building Code, Section 304, ## Combustible Waste Material Page 33 of 57 ## Addressing ## Temporary Address During Construction: • Must be posted on each Townhome construction site as soon as construction begins. • Townhome numbers must be clearly displayed. • Numbers must be kept clear of obstructions to help emergency vehicles find the address without delay. • Should be in a place that it cannot be covered by snow, snow plowing, over growth, bushes, dumpsters, or garbage. • Note: The address may need to be placed in several areas to be seen by emergency personnel. ## Permanent Address Posting: • A permanent address is required before the residence can be occupied, see below for addressing details. • Townhome address numbers must be clearly displayed. • Townhome numbers must be kept clear of obstructions to help emergency vehicles find the address without delay. • Townhome numbers must be clearly displayed. • The address must be visible from the middle of the street during all times of the year and all hours of the day. • Numbers must be a contrasting color with background they will be mounted on or engraved in. • The address numbers must be permanently displayed, i.e., carved, engraved, or mounted. • Townhouse numbers must be kept clear of obstructions to help emergency vehicles find the address without delay. • The address should be in a place that cannot be covered by snow, snow plowing, overgrowth, bushes, garbage, or recycling cans stored or pulled to the curb. Page 34 of 57 ## Hydrants • The Hydrant location is approved by the Excelsior Fire District Fire Marshal based on the submitted plans (1-20-2026). • Hydrant signs cannot be within 3 feet of the hydrant. Minnesota State Fire Code Sections 507.5.4-507.5.6 • Hydrants require 3 feet of working space around them at all times, trees, shrubs, perennials, and other landscaping elements shall not impede on the 3 foot perimeter over time. ## Lease and/or Homeowners Association Fire Safety Recommendations • Electric bicycles and electric scooters ( e-bikes and e-scooters) o Should not be stored in the dwellings o Cannot be changed inside the dwellings. • No Grilling on roof tops or patios • Use Minnesota State Fire Code Appendix O, Fire or Barbecues on Balconies or Patios verbiage. Appendix available upon request. Note: I will be out of the office, and have limited availability from Tuesday, February 17 th to ## Monday, March 16 th . I will be available to respond to e mails and phones calls; however, there will be times I’ll be in areas where there is no cell service. 2-3 days. ## Respectfully, ## Kellie Murphy-Ringate ## Excelsior Fire District Fire Marshal 952-960-1692 ## Kmurphyringate@excelsiorfire.org Page 35 of 57 ## 1309.0313SECTION R313, AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.​ IRC section R313 is amended to read as follows:​ R313.1 Townhouse automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler​ system shall be installed in townhouses.​ ## Exceptions:​ 1. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required to be installed in a​ two-unit townhouse, unless required by section R313.4.​ 2. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required when additions or​ alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire​ sprinkler system installed.​ R313.1.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems for​ townhouses shall be designed and installed in accordance with IRC section P2904 or NFPA​ ## 13D.​ R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire systems. An automatic residential fire​ sprinkler system shall not be required to be installed in one- and two-family dwellings, unless​ required by section R313.4.​ R313.2.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall be​ designed and installed in accordance with IRC section P2904 or NFPA 13D.​ R313.3 Installation requirements. When an automatic sprinkler system is required in​ two-family dwellings, it shall be installed in accordance with IRC section P2904 or NFPA 13D.​ Automatic sprinkler systems required in two-family dwellings and townhouse buildings​ shall be installed in accordance with the following:​ 1. Attached garages are required to have one dry head sprinkler located within 5​ lineal feet of each door installed in the common wall separating the dwelling unit​ and the attached garage;​ 2. Attached covered patios, covered decks, covered porches, and similar structures​ are required to have automatic sprinklers with a minimum of one dry head for every​ 20 lineal feet (6.096 m) of common wall between the dwelling unit and the covered​ patio, covered deck, covered porch, or similar structure.​ Exception: Attached roofs of covered patios, covered decks, covered porches, or similar​ structures that do not exceed 40 square feet (3,716 m 2 ) of floor area.​ R313.4 State-licensed facilities. One- and two-family dwellings and townhouse buildings​ containing facilities required to be licensed or registered by the state of Minnesota shall be​ provided with an automatic sprinkler system required by the applicable licensing provisions of​ that agency or according to this part, whichever is more restrictive.​ Copyright © 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.​ ## 1309.0313​MINNESOTA RULES​1​ Page 36 of 57 Statutory Authority: MS s 16B.59; 16B.61; 16B.64; 326B.02; 326B.101; 326B.106; 326B.13;​ L 2017 c 20 s 1​ History: 32 SR 12; L 2007 c 140 art 4 s 61; art 13 s 4; 39 SR 91; 41 SR 1399​ Published Electronically:August 22, 2018​ Copyright © 2018 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.​ ## 2​MINNESOTA RULES​1309.0313​ Page 37 of 57 Page 38 of 57 Page 39 of 57 Page 40 of 57 H:\SHWD\26X142587000\1_Corres\C_To Others\Concept Submittal 2\Highway 7 PUD - Concept Submittal 2 Plan Review .docx ## MEMORANDUM Date: April 7, 2026 ## To: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director ## From: Andrew Budde, PE ## Subject: 25485 Hwy 7 Concept Plan Submittal #2 Review ## City of Shorewood ## Project No.: 26X142587 The following documents were submitted for a concept review of compliance with the City of Shorewood’s City Code/ Local Surface Water Management Plan and Engineering Standards: • 2026 02 03 – Tree Preservation Worksheet • Application • Civil Plan REV 1 3-25-26 • Floorplan and Elevations ## • Project Narrative • Survey ## • Zoning Map This review only included the documents listed above, primarily dealing with general site layout, utilities, tree preservation, and landscaping. These comments should be incorporated to future preliminary plat submittals. ## Grading, Drainage, Stormwater 1. Provide a Soil Report for the site. 2. Based on the soil data provided by USGS Soils Map, it appears the majority of the site is HSG C/D soil and may not be suitable for infiltration. 3. The property must meet the City of Shorewood Surface Water Management Plan Regulations (Section 5.3) including, but not limited to: a. Future discharge rates shall not exceed existing discharge rates modelled for the 1-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events b. Provide groundwater data and verify that the low floor elevation is i. 4.0 feet above groundwater elevations in the area. ii. 2.0 feet above known historic high groundwater elevations. iii. 1.0 feet above the 100-year high water elevation. c. Provide sizing calculations for abstraction of one inch of rainfall over the net new impervious of the site. 4. Due to potentially high groundwater, basements may not be possible. Page 41 of 57 Name: 25485 Hwy 7 Date: April 7, 2026 Page: 2 5. Proposed hardcover exceeds maximum allowable hardcovers established by the City and Shoreland zone. 6. Grade the property such that runoff rates to neighboring properties will not be increased from existing conditions, including MnDOT right of way. 7. Owners of private stormwater facilities shall enter into an agreement with the City describing responsibility for the long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities and shall be executed and recorded with the final plat. 8. Permits will be required with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. ## Sanitary Sewer/Watermain 9. A minimum 8” diameter watermain shall be extended from the Eureka Rd/Park Lake intersection. 10. An individual water service and curb stop shut off valve shall be provided for each unit (6 total). 11. A minimum 8” diameter sanitary sewer shall be extended from Eureka Rd. The eastern manhole shall be placed so all services are installed perpendicular to the main. 12. An individual sewer service shall be provided for each unit (6 total). 13. All utilities shall be installed in accordance with Shorewood’s Construction Standards and Details updated in 2025. 14. Utility installations will likely require road closures and detours of Eureka Road. Traffic control plans will be required prior to construction. 15. Easements shall be provided over sanitary sewer and watermains. ## Roadway 16. MnDOT is currently planning improvements to TH 7 and likely to include access changes at the TH 7/Eureka Road intersection. Construction is slated for 2029. 17. Additional comments will be provided on future plan reviews. Page 42 of 57 ## Metropolitan District ## 1500 County Road B-2 West ## Roseville, MN 55113 Page 1 of 3 March 10, 2026 ## Aaron Osowski ## Planner ## City of Shorewood ## 5755 Country Club Road ## Shorewood, MN 55331 SUBJECT: 25485 Hwy 7 ## MnDOT Review #S26-009 ## NE Quadrant of MN 7 and Eureka Rd ## Shorewood, Hennepin County ## Dear Aaron Osowski, Thank you for submitting the concept plans for the project at 25485 Hwy 7. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the documents, and has the following comments: ## Highway 7 MnDOT Project MnDOT has a planned project for construction in 2029/2030 that could affect the access of Eureka Rd at TH 7. Possible changes could require different right-of-way needs. The developer should coordinate with the City of Shorewood and MnDOT. For questions and further coordination on this project, please contact Kyle Fitterer, West Area Engineer, at kyle.fitterer@state.mn.us or 651-440-4057. ## Water Resources From the plans provided, it is not clear where the site or infiltration basin will ultimately drain. If site grading and development alters drainage patterns or rates of discharge to TH 7 Right of Way, then a MnDOT drainage permit will be required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload this letter with the drainage permit application. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions or are reduced. 2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations. 3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed and additional information may be requested. Please contact Derek Beauduy, Water Resources Engineering, at derek.beauduy@state.mn.us or 651-234-7522 with any questions. ## Noise MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic Page 43 of 57 Page 2 of 3 noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities with the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy, please contact Natalie Ries in Metro District’s Noise and Air Quality Unit at natalie.ries@state.mn.us or 651-234-7681. ## Permits Any use of, work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. The applicant can apply for permits and upload plans here: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please include a copy of this letter with all permit submissions. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Jeff Dierberger of MnDOT’s Metro District Permits Section at jeffrey.dierberger@state.mn.us or 651-775-0404. ## Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 MB (megabytes) per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each email. 2. Files over 20 MB can also be uploaded to MnDOT’s Web Transfer Client site: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us, and staff will create a shared folder in which files can be uploaded to. Please send an accompanying email with a narrative for the development. You are welcome to contact me at regina.burstein@state.mn.us with any questions. ## Sincerely, ## Regina Burstein ## Senior Planner Page 44 of 57 Page 3 of 3 Copy sent via email: ## Derek Beauduy, Water Resources ## Jeff Dierberger, Permits ## Doug Nelson, Right of Way ## Zaheer Khan, Traffic ## Amrish Patel, Transit ## Natalie Ries, Noise ## Kyle Fitterer, West Area Engineer ## Ryan Wilson, West Area Manager ## Heather Gardner, Design ## Michael Kowski, Maintenance ## Tristan Trejo, Ped/Bike/ADA Planning ## Brandon Davis, Surveying ## Tod Sherman, Planning ## Cameron Muhic, Planning ## Joseph Widing, Metropolitan Council Page 45 of 57 This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. ## Outlook Re: Updated Application Received - 25485 Hwy 7 PUD Concept Plan FromToot, Ryan (He/Him/His) (DNR) <Ryan.Toot@state.mn.us> DateTue 4/7/2026 8:14 AM ## ToAaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> ## Aaron, Thank you for keeping me in the loop on this PUD. No comments from DNR. ## Ryan Toot (he/him) North Metro Area Hydrologist | Central Region | Ecological and Water Resources ## Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ## 1200 Warner Rd ## St. Paul, MN 55106 Office: 651-259-5822 Email: ryan.toot@state.mn.us ## From: Aaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> ## Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 8:59 AM To: Marc Nevinski <mnevinski@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Jared Shepherd <JShepherd@ck-law.com>; Andrew Budde <andrew.budde@bolton-menk.com>; Building <building@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Jake Griffiths <jgriffiths@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; ## Jeanne Schmuck <jschmuck@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Cc: Toot, Ryan (He/Him/His) (DNR) <Ryan.Toot@state.mn.us>; Permitting <permitting@minnehahacreek.org> <permitting@minnehahacreek.org>; 'Kellie Murphy Ringate' <kmurphyringate@excelsiorfire.org> Subject: Updated Application Received - 25485 Hwy 7 PUD Concept Plan You don't often get email from aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us. Learn why this is important Hi everyone, The City of Shorewood has received updated application materials for a PUD Concept Plan for a 6-unit, 2-building townhome development at 25485 Hwy 7, located at the intersection of Hwy 7 and Eureka Rd. Application materials are attached. Please review and provide any comments to me at aosowski@shorewoodmn.gov by Friday, April 10, or sooner. The property is located partially within a shoreland overlay district. There is an escrow for legal and engineering review. If you provided comments on this project when I sent out their initial application materials on Feb. 4, please let me know whether you would like your comments amended or kept the same. The application has only changed slightly since the first submission. Thank you! 4/7/26, 3:44 PMInbox - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQAEYy9udmYnNBkXkQCddCtg...1/2 Page 46 of 57 ## AARON OSOWSKI ## Planner ## City Hall:952.960.7900 ## 5755 Country Club RoadDirect:952.960.7912 ## Shorewood, MN 55331aosowski@shorewoodmn.gov ## Available Monday – Friday 8:30am – 4:30pm www.shorewoodmn.gov 4/7/26, 3:44 PMInbox - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQAEYy9udmYnNBkXkQCddCtg...2/2 Page 47 of 57 1 ## Aaron Osowski From:CityHall <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us> ## Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 9:46 AM ## To: ## Jake Griffiths; Aaron Osowski; Marc Nevinski ## Subject: FW: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. ## Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up ## Flag Status: ## Flagged Please see email below. It was addressed to City Council, but I did not forward to them. Thank you, ## NELIA CRISWELL ## AdministraƟve Assistant ## City Hall: ## 5755 Country Club Road ncriswell@ci.shorewood.mn.us ## Shorewood, MN 55331 www.shorewoodmn.gov -----Original Message----- ## From: Patricia Wolff <mnmaven@yahoo.com> ## Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 7:31 AM ## To: CityHall <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. ## Dear Shorewood City Council: Please do not allow more homes to be built at the intersecƟon of highway 7 and Eureka Road. There is already too much vehicle traffic along narrow Eureka Road and too much congesƟon at the dangerous intersecƟon with highway 7. I have seen too many close calls with vehicles trying to get onto highway 7. Death and injuries caused by accidents at this intersecƟon must be considered over financial profits. Furthermore, funneling traffic from this development to the north on Eureka and onto Smithtown Road makes no sense either as the streets are narrow and already congested with cars, delivery vans, work trucks, school buses, emergency vehicles, etc. Traffic flow is also impacted every Ɵme there are projects related to road maintenance, tree cuƫng, and uƟlity work. In addiƟon, the Eureka-Smithtown area is a corridor for wildlife, walkers, runners, and bicyclists, not to menƟon school kids going to and from the elementary school and Freeman Park. Their safety must also be considered. The residents along Smithtown and Eureka Road do not want more traffic congesƟon in this neighborhood. ## Patricia Wolff ## 25840 Smithtown Road Page 48 of 57 2 ## Shorewood MN 55331 Page 49 of 57 Page 50 of 57 ## Outlook Fw: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. ## FromAaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> DateThu 4/23/2026 10:36 AM ## ToMerle Steinkraus <merle.steinkraus@gmail.com>; Jeff Kist <kistjl@gmail.com> ## CcLance Elliott <lance@elliottdesignbuild.com>; Work <bpassolt@elliottdesignbuild.com> Hi Merle & others, See the comment below from a Shorewood resident regarding your pending application. Just a heads up that this will be included in the Planning Commission packet. Thanks! ## AARON OSOWSKI ## Planner ## City Hall:952.960.7900 ## 5755 Country Club RoadDirect:952.960.7912 ## Shorewood, MN 55331aosowski@shorewoodmn.gov ## Available Monday – Friday 8:30am – 4:30pm www.shorewoodmn.gov ## From: CityHall <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us> ## Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 9:46 AM To: Jake Griffiths <jgriffiths@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Aaron Osowski <aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Marc Nevinski <mnevinski@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: FW: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. Please see email below. It was addressed to City Council, but I did not forward to them. Thank you, ## NELIA CRISWELL ## Administrative Assistant ## City Hall: ## 5755 Country Club Road ncriswell@ci.shorewood.mn.us ## Shorewood, MN 55331 www.shorewoodmn.gov -----Original Message----- ## From: Patricia Wolff <mnmaven@yahoo.com> ## Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 7:31 AM 4/23/26, 11:06 AMMail - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQACRvYJYvyO1Knq8QJ0zTgA...1/2 Page 51 of 57 ## To: CityHall <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Plan for six more townhomes at 25485 Highway 7. ## Dear Shorewood City Council: Please do not allow more homes to be built at the intersection of highway 7 and Eureka Road. There is already too much vehicle traffic along narrow Eureka Road and too much congestion at the dangerous intersection with highway 7. I have seen too many close calls with vehicles trying to get onto highway 7. Death and injuries caused by accidents at this intersection must be considered over financial profits. Furthermore, funneling traffic from this development to the north on Eureka and onto Smithtown Road makes no sense either as the streets are narrow and already congested with cars, delivery vans, work trucks, school buses, emergency vehicles, etc. Traffic flow is also impacted every time there are projects related to road maintenance, tree cutting, and utility work. In addition, the Eureka-Smithtown area is a corridor for wildlife, walkers, runners, and bicyclists, not to mention school kids going to and from the elementary school and Freeman Park. Their safety must also be considered. The residents along Smithtown and Eureka Road do not want more traffic congestion in this neighborhood. ## Patricia Wolff ## 25840 Smithtown Road ## Shorewood MN 55331 4/23/26, 11:06 AMMail - Aaron Osowski - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADZjY2M5ZDY3LTc2OWQtNDA2OS1iNmE1LTNmZWEzZWY0NzU4ZgAQACRvYJYvyO1Knq8QJ0zTgA...2/2 Page 52 of 57 Planning Commission Item 5.A. ## Title/Subject: Discuss Zoning Code Update ## Meeting Date: May 5, 2026 ## Prepared By: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director ## Attachments ## 1. Consultant's Memo ## Background Beth Richmond and Carolyn Shumaker, with the City's consultant HKGI, will provide a presentation to the Commission on the zoning code update project. Please see the attached memorandum for additional details regarding this item. ## Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to discuss the zoning code update project and provide any feedback to City staff and the City's consultant. No formal action is requested. Page 53 of 57 ## 800 Washington Avenue North, Suite 207 ## Minneapolis, MN 55401 ## Planning Commission Report ## To: City of Shorewood Planning Commission ## From: Beth Richmond and Carolyn Shumaker Date: April 27, 2026 ## Subject: Zoning Code Update – Phase 1 ## Meeting Date: May 5, 2026 ## Project Introduction Phase 1 of the Zoning Code Update project began in January 2026 and focused on the organization of the code and technical edits that can be made to improve its usability. This project built on the results from the Zoning Code Audit project which was completed in October 2025. As part of the audit, a detailed issue list of potential code issues and changes was created. This issue tracker was intended to be used as a road map during the update process to ensure that all issues that were brought up as part of the audit are addressed. At the beginning of the Phase 1 Update, Staff and HKGi used the issue tracker to agree upon which edits would be made during Phase 1 and which would be left until Phase 2. For the Phase 1 Update, the main changes to the code include: - Improve usability of the code - Reorganization of the code - Zoning district adjustments - Procedures Phase 2 of the Update will occur following the completion of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update project and will incorporate any necessary changes to the code that come out of that planning process, along with updates to the Shoreland and Floodplain districts and requirements for telecommunication facilities. ## Improve Code Usability A main focus of the Phase 1 Update is to complete technical updates which improve the usability and readability of the code. These updates include adjusting the numbering and formatting of the code, reorganizing code sections to group similar topics together, creating tables and graphics to clarify standards reduce unnecessary text, and addressing inconsistencies in language, grammar, and references. The table below compares the existing code organization with the proposed organization and numbering scheme. Page 54 of 57 ## Planning Commission Report ## Zoning Code Update – Phase 1 May 5, 2026 2 ## Existing Code Organization Updated Code Organization ## 1201.01 Title and Application 1201.10 Introductory Provisions 1201.02 Definitions 1201.20 Definitions ## 1201.03 General Provisions 1201.30 General Zoning Provisions 1201.04- 1201.08 Administration, procedures, and enforcement ## 1201.40 Base Zoning Districts 1201.09 Establishment of zoning classifications ## 1201.50 Overlay & Special Zoning Districts 1201.10- 1201.24 Individual base zoning districts 1201.60 Use-Specific Standards ## 1201.25 Planned Unit Development ## District ## 1201.70 Development Procedures ## 1201.26 Shoreland District 1201.80 Signage Ch 1101 Floodplain management regulations 1201.90 Procedures and Enforcement Ch 1102 Wetland developments Ch 1103 Tree preservation Existing section 1201.03 General Provisions serves as a catch-all chapter for the code today. It contains 23 subdivisions covering a range of topics, including yard requirements, parking, signage, and use-specific standards for uses like home occupations, accessory apartments, and telecommunications towers. This section has been split out to reorganize the provisions into groups by similar topics. Chapters 1101, 1102, and 1103 have been moved into Chapter 1201 Zoning. Chapter 1101 Floodplain Management Regulations was moved into Division 1201.50 Overlay & Special Zoning Districts. Chapters 1102 Wetland Developments and Tree Preservation can now be found in Division 1201.70 Development Standards. Page 55 of 57 ## Planning Commission Report ## Zoning Code Update – Phase 1 May 5, 2026 3 ## Update Zoning Districts As part of Phase 1, Staff and HKGi worked to reorganize the zoning districts into a more logical format. This involved reducing the number of districts in the City from 13 to 8 by consolidating similar districts and removing those that are not applied today. The table below shows the proposed changes to the zoning districts. ## Existing Zoning Districts Updated Zoning Districts ## R-1A Single Family Residential R-EL Estate Lot Residential ## R-1B Single Family Residential Combined into R-LL ## R-1C Single Family Residential R-LL Large Lot Detached Residential ## R-1D Single Family Residential R-SL Small Lot Detached Residential ## R-2A Single/Two-Family Residential Combined into R-LD ## R-2B Single/Two-Family Residential R-LD Low Density Residential ## R-2C Single/Two-Family Residential Eliminated ## R-3A Multiple Family Residential R-MD Medium Density Residential ## R-3B Multiple Family Residential R-HD High Density Residential ## R-C Residential Commercial Eliminated ## C-1 General Commercial G-CM General Commercial ## C-2 Commercial Service Eliminated ## L-R Lakeshore Recreational LS-R Lakeshore Recreational Use tables and dimensional tables were also created as part of the code update. Tables improve the readability of a code and help users compare differences between zoning districts. How uses are allowed in each district were updated to comply with state requirements for protected uses like manufactured home parks and daycare facilities. Tables for lot dimensions (lot area, lot width) and site dimensions (setbacks, height) were also created. The dimensional standards were adjusted to conform with the density requirements in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and are now listed by use type within each district. Page 56 of 57 ## Planning Commission Report ## Zoning Code Update – Phase 1 May 5, 2026 4 ## Procedures All of the procedures listed in the code, including conditional use permits (CUPs), variances, and zoning amendments have been grouped together into a single division (1201.90). A new procedure for site plan review has been added. Site plans will be required for the construction or alteration of townhouses, multi-unit dwellings, and non-residential buildings; 1-4 unit dwellings are exempt from this requirement. Site plan review may be wrapped into the building permit approval process, or may be included as part of the review process for other requests, such as CUPs or variances. Site plans are to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator, unless the Zoning Administrator chooses to refer the site plan to the Planning Commission and City Council. Adjustments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process are also proposed as part of this update, including proposing to establish PUDs by zoning amendment rather than by CUP and adding language about the procedures for minor and major PUD amendments. Establishment of a PUD occurs in three stages. The first stage is a general concept plan, where the Planning Commission and Council review the initial plan and provide feedback. Previously, a public hearing had been required at this stage. Staff and HKGi are proposing to eliminate the public hearing as part of this process, and would like feedback on that potential change. The second stage is the development stage plan, which includes a public hearing and review by the Planning Commission before the City Council makes a final decision. Lastly, the final plan is reviewed administratively. ## Next Steps The code update will be presented at the May 5 Planning Commission and May 11 City Council meetings. The full draft code will be available online for roughly one month for Commissioners, Councilmembers, Staff, and members of the public to review and provide comments. At the end of the review period, HKGi will review the comments and incorporate necessary edits into the code draft. The full draft will be brought to the Planning Commission in early summer for a public hearing and recommendation and the City Council for final adoption. Page 57 of 57