Plan Commission Agenda and Materials

Plan Commission Meeting Agenda September 22, 2026 6:30 pm – Village Hall Court Room 3930 N. Murray Ave., Shorewood, WI 53211 J oin Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/91311881153?pwd=EQ79bveggGHarLpz30ZUaQwNtG2P3J.1 O r call in (audio only) +1 305-224-1968 Meeting ID: 913 1188 1153 Passcode: 828809 C ommunity members that desire to provide public comment should plan to attend the meeting or submit their comments to bgriepentrog@shorewoodwi.gov through 3:00 pm the day prior to the meeting. Comments received prior to the deadline will be shared with the Plan Commission. Comments after that deadline will need to be shared verbally within the meeting during available public comment periods. 1) Call to order. 2) A pproval of June 23, 2026 Plan Commission meeting minutes. 3) Fur ther discussion and possible recommendation of an ordinance amendment related to v ision setbacks as defined in 535-10. a) O verview b) Public comment c) Plan Commission discussion 4) Fut ure agenda items. a) F ive-year Comprehensive Plan review b) Wisconsin Act 173 “Truth in Planning” c) Short-term rental regulations d) Update on Accessory Dwelling Units 5) Adjournment. Dated at Shorewood, Wisconsin, this 18th day of September, 2026 Village of Shorewood Toya Harrell, Village Clerk Should you have any questions or comments regarding any item on this agenda, please contact Bart Griepentrog, Planning Director, Planning & Development Department, at (414) 847-2640. Upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of all people. I t is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may be in attendance at the above stated meeting to gather information; no action will be taken by any governmental body at the above stated meeting other than the governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice. T he Village of Shorewood is aware that phishing attempts are being sent to our constituents disguised as invoices associated with project or permit approvals. Beware of any such attempts and always verify the sender before clicking on links or downloading attachments. 1 of 16 1 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2026 3930 N. Murray Avenue, Village of Shorewood, WI 53211 DRAFT 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. Present: President Ann McKaig, Trustee Matt McGovern, Commissioners Kate Flynn Post, Michael Kloehn, Josh Pollack, Therese Klein Absent: Commissioner John Holz Others present: Planning Director Bart Griepentrog, Planning Administrative Clerk Crystal Kopydlowski 2. Approval of February 24, 2026 Plan Commission meeting minutes. Ms. Flynn Post motioned to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Ms. Klein. Vote to approve, 6-0. 3. Introduction to a possible ordinance amendment related to vision setbacks as defined in 535-10. Director Griepentrog stated that this potential ordinance amendment has been discussed internally for approximately ten to fifteen years. He agreed it was outdated but it never rose to the level of attention that prompted an update. Last year, within the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan update, it was identified as a short-term recommendation for review to see if there was an appetite to make it more implementable. As currently drafted, it rarely ever qualifies because it is written to only apply to intersections that are not controlled. The Village does not have many uncontrolled intersections. It is also drafted from the street centerline which makes it difficult to administer/measure/implement, and it is silent on driveways, alleys and other intersections where vision of pedestrians is important to the community. The meeting materials contained the current definition and a proposed definition. The proposed definition has been worked on by internal staff and confirmed by the Village Engineer. It was also provided to the Parks and Public Spaces Committee in January because they were interested in implementing it as one of the short-term recommendations of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. No further comments have been received since January. Also in the materials, is an illustration showing what this would relate to with 25 feet off a generally perpendicular intersection and 10 feet off alleys and driveways. Many things that are installed or proposed are fine because these measurements do not impact lot lines necessarily. There are unique situations though where fences could impact/obstruct views and currently are approved because there is nothing in place to deny them. This is an introduction tonight as the Plan Commission is the recommending body regarding changes to the zoning chapter. A second Plan Commission meeting is required for a recommendation. After a recommendation, a public hearing would be scheduled before the 2 of 16 PC Meeting 06-23-2026 2 Village Board which requires two public notices. This is a minimum of two to three months of discussion before consideration. Mr. Kloehn said that as an avid cyclist and walker he is not interested in being hit by a car. He asked if there have been incidents of this or if this is to get ahead of the curve. Director Griepentrog said he knows there have been incidents in the Village but cannot confirm if those have been caused by vision obstructions. Whether this change is proactive or reactive he feels it should be addressed. Ms. Klein said she has seen incidents and experienced them. She asked how high a typical fence is. Director Griepentrog said typically a fence is four feet high in a front yard, but a fence can be as high as six feet in a street side yard. He explained that a fence, taller than three feet, would not be able to be placed within the vision triangle unless it was 50% opaque. Ms. Klein asked about property elevation changes and Director Griepentrog said this is measured from the road surface. The general goal is to keep; items out of this area. He stated he could bring examples to the next meeting. President McKaig asked if the regulation could be 4’ instead of 3’ height restrictions. Director Griepentrog stated that 3’ was the standard and believed that was based on someone sitting in a car. He explained that the update does not change the height dimension currently in the code but adding the application to the intersections of driveways and alleys. Ms. Flynn Post said she was thinking of an example where the new regulation would limit a resident’s privacy of their patio and said that when new regulations are created it should be balanced and address something that is a real problem versus creating new regulations that then have actual implications for people’s properties. President McKaig asked if the regulation being based on the height of someone in a car or a child documented anywhere. Director Griepentrog stated that the regulation was confirmed with Village Engineers and that he could ask them and bring back the answer. He said this was a policy decision based on what the priority is whether that was a property owner right to enclose their back yard or blocking pedestrians from being visible. Mr. Pollack commented that the way the triangles were displayed within the perimeter of the lot line were different than the intersection and looked different from other references to vision triangles and asked if that was intentional or inconsistency. Director Griepentrog said that the triangle at street corner’s goal is to open to corner for a vehicle on the street and is based on the intersection of the perpendicular curb whereas the triangle on the alley/driveway is based on the driver exiting and based off the sidewalk intersection with the alley/driveway. Mr. Pollack said other examples he has seen measure differently often with four triangles in an intersection and that he would share some of those examples. He is trying to understand/visualize what vision is supposed to improve with this regulation. Director Griepentrog explained that a measurement from the center of an intersection is hard to measure in the field and not practical. The proposed regulation measures from the curb. Ms. Klein thinks this is great and helps with safety and keeping corners free of debris. Ms. Flynn Post thinks walkability and biking are important and anything they can do to support cyclists and pedestrians is essential and a positive step. 3 of 16 PC Meeting 06-23-2026 3 Mr. Pollack asked for examples of how this will be applied. Ms. Flynn Post asked for examples of fencing types that would be opaque and allowed. President McKaig asked how many preexisting structures/fences there are or some examples. Director Griepentrog will provide more examples of these. Director Griepentrog added that plantings do not need permits but could be addressed if complaints are received. If plantings were in place prior to this ordinance amendment, they would be considered existing non-conforming and allowed to stay but would not be able to be replanted if in violation. 4. Discussion related to Wisconsin Act 173 “Truth in Planning”. Director Griepentrog stated this relates to new state legislation (2025 Wisconsin Act 173) that passed in April and goes into effect January 1, 2028. The Commission was provided the League of Municipalities summary and the full language of the Act in their materials. The legislation has four parts that address the following: • Minimum and maximum densities in the future land use element (minimums would need to be added to the Comprehensive Plan), • Rezoning requests and making sure zoning matches land use categories (would have to confirm the zoning allows for densities, R1-R6 would need confirmation) • TIF language updates • Updated to allow extension of TID districts for affordable housing Director Griepentrog said the first two parts are the focus for updating and can be done as part of the 5-year review of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Flynn Post said this is a great opportunity to update the Comprehensive Plan and reconcile with the Zoning Code. She thinks it is interesting at the state level this type of legislation coming with bipartisan support to address affordable housing crisis. This creates a path forward for developers. She would like to explore the particulars and how it applies to Shorewood and their work as a Commission and what limitations it places on the Commission. She added that if they felt confident the Comprehensive Plan had enough public engagement then they can say we are in a good place but if they felt that further engagement from the community was needed this could be a good time to do that. She would like to see a strategic path forward with this. Mr. Kloehn asked if the Comprehensive Plan is amended to comply if there is someone at the state level that reviews the update. Director Griepentrog said that not to his knowledge and that the update to comply with the Act is more to protect against any future lawsuits. He said the village attorney will review any updates also. Ms. Flynn Post asked about point two of the legislation that states “local government does not meet existing housing demand or forecasted housing demand within the next five years, as identified in the housing element in the comprehensive plan” and what this means for Shorewood and who enforces that. Director Griepentrog said those numbers are identified in the Comprehensive Plan and come from the Department of Administration. He said that they would have to confirm if these numbers are accurate and attainable. Director Griepentrog will prepare this in conjunction with the 5-year review of the Comprehensive Plan. Trustee McGovern asked if the 5-year review would be completed in 2026. Director Griepentrog said it would be started in 2026 but likely not completed. 4 of 16 PC Meeting 06-23-2026 4 5. Update on housing opportunities initiative. Director Griepentrog said the ordinances (ADU’s, bedrooms in basements and the housing definition) they recommend did pass at the Village Board level. 6. Future agenda items. Director Griepentrog stated that no applications have been received and that he would poll the commissioners for their availability in July in case a meeting is to be scheduled. 7. A djournment. Trustee McGovern moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Second by Mr. Pollack. Vote to adjourn 6-0. Recorded by, Crystal Kopydlowski Planning & Development Administrative Clerk 5 of 16 Report to Plan Commission September 22, 2026 Prepared by: Bart Griepentrog, AICP, Planning & Development Director 3. Further discussion and possible recommendation of an ordinance amendment related to vision setbacks as defined in 535-10. Overview The Village’s current Vision Setback Area requirements are defined within 535-10D of the Zoning Chapter. Based on years of implementation, primarily with respect to fences, monument signs and special privilege permits, these regulations are believed to be out of context with Shorewood’s built environment. The Village’s recently adopted Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2025) has recommendations to “Review and consider updates to the Village’s “vision triangle” regulations around alley entrances and exits, and driveway approaches to enhance pedestrian safety and make it less likely that pedestrians and other sidewalk users will be struck by vehicles.” Updates to this code section were identified as a short-term implementation task, and since the regulations are located within the Zoning Chapter, a recommendation from the Plan Commission is required per 535-64. Discussion The current regulations, see below, indicate that Vision Setback Areas shall only be established at the intersection of public streets (not including alleys or driveways) without traffic controls (stop lights or stop/yield signs). This excepts nearly all intersections in the village and has limited the usefulness of implementation. Additionally, defining the dimensions of the setback area from the center line of streets can be less useful than defining the area from the curb, driveway, sidewalk or alley where the vision is more critical. VISION SETBACK An unoccupied triangular space at the street corner of a corner lot as established hereinafter in this chapter. 535-10 Height and yard modifications. D. Vision setback area. (1) Except for intersections controlled by stop lights, stop signs or yield signs, vision setback lines at intersections of public streets shall be established by a straight line connecting two points which are on the center lines of and 50 feet from the intersection point of the two center lines of intersecting streets. (2) In the vision setback area, no structure of any kind shall be permitted which exceeds a height of three feet above the elevation of the center of the intersection, except necessary highway and traffic signs, public utility lines and open fences through which there is 6 of 16 clear vision, nor shall any fence or plant material be permitted which obscures safe vision of the approaches of the intersection. The proposed update, see below, would expand the Vision Setback Area to include the intersections of all streets, alleys and driveways, and would define those areas based on the location of the curb, sidewalk, driveway or alley. (Updated since the Plan Commission’s last discussion on June 23, 2026.) VISION SETBACK An unoccupied triangular space at the intersection of a street, alley or driveway as established hereinafter in this chapter. 535-10 Height and yard modifications. D. Vision setback. A triangular area shall be maintained clear of obstructions at the intersection of streets, alleys and driveways. Unless excepted, no building or structure greater than 12 inches in width shall be allowed between a height of three to ten feet above the surface of the roadway, alley or driveway, nor shall any plant material be allowed which obscures safe vision of the intersection. Streetlights, traffic signs, utility poles and tree trunks shall be excepted, and fencing may only be permitted if the pickets do not obscure more than 50% of the structure. Vision triangles shall be measured as follows: (1) A vision triangle at the intersection of generally perpendicular streets shall be measured along the face of the curb to a distance of 25 feet from the intersection of the extended curb lines along both roadways. A vision triangle at the intersection of generally non-perpendicular streets shall be determined by the Village Engineer on a case-by-case basis. (2) A vision triangle at the intersection of driveways and alleys shall be measured along the edge of the driveway or public alley and the back edge of the intersecting sidewalk to a distance of 10 feet along both sides of the alley and the sidewalk. If updated, existing obstructions would become non-conforming and could remain in place until removed or replaced. The regulations would primarily be used when reviewing new applications for fences, signs or requests for special privileges or upon enforcement of newly planted landscaping, such as hedges. The Village’s contracted Engineer (Strand Associates) reviewed the proposed changes and provided some clarifying language, which has been included in the current proposal. The Parks and Public Spaces Committee, which includes the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety subcommittee, was provided an overview and copy of the proposed changes in January 2026. No comments have been received to date. They will be kept informed of any discussion/recommendation of the Plan Commission, prior to consideration of the Village Board. At the June 23, 2026 Plan Commission meeting, an understanding of why a height of three feet was utilized. The Village Engineer provided the following: The intention of the 3-feet height is to avoid blocking the view of a pedestrian or objects (cars, bikes, pets, etc.) in the roadway. 3.5 feet is generally used as the driver’s eye height, and the object height inside of the roadway. Per WisDOT’s language below, the 7 of 16 height behind the curb and gutter is 2.5 feet, but the Village can round up to 3-feet as they see fit. Anything over 10 feet (a tree canopy for example) wouldn’t impact a driver’s view of the clear sight window. WisDOTs guidance says 5-feet above site line datums so 8.5-feet. 10-feet is slightly more conservative than the FDM. WisDOT FDM 11-10.5.1.4.2.2 Vertical Boundaries of Clear Sight Triangles The bottom boundaries of clear sight triangles are the sight line datums inside the road limits, and 1-foot below the sight line datums outside the road limits. A sight line datum is defined as a line of sight which is 3.5-feet above the pavement surface on each end. The road limit is defined as the edge of finished shoulder or the back of curb, whichever is applicable, unless there is a barrier or bridge parapet. In those cases, the road limits are defined as the back edges of roadside barriers or bridge parapets. The top boundaries of clear sight triangles are 5-foot above the sight line datums. Commissioners also requested visual examples of current obstructions, including fence examples, which are attached to this memo for review. Next Steps The process for Changes and Amendments to the Zoning Chapter are outlined in Article XI. Of note, this article details that “Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice requires, the Village Board of Trustees may, by ordinance, change the district boundaries or amend, change or supplement the regulations established by this chapter or amendments thereto”. Such changes may be initiated by the Village Board or Plan Commission, or by property owners through a petition. The article also states that petitions shall be referred to the Plan Commission for review and recommendation, prior to consideration after a public hearing by the Village Board. The Plan Commission’s recommendation “shall be made at a meeting subsequent to the meeting at which the petition is first submitted.” Since this topic was introduced for discussion at the June 23, 2026 Plan Commission meeting a recommendation may be made, however, should additional detail be required, future discussion may also be scheduled. After a formal recommendation is made a public hearing in front of the Village Board would be scheduled. Possible Motion I move to direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment to modify the Village’s vision setback area as presented and discussed for consideration of the Village Board. Materials Enclosed • Current and Proposed Vision Setback Area regulations • Vision Triangle Illustration • Photo representation of current issues and fencing examples 8 of 16 Current: VISION SETBACK An unoccupied triangular space at the street corner of a corner lot as established hereinafter in this chapter. 535-10 Height and yard modifications. D. Vision setback area. (1) Except for intersections controlled by stop lights, stop signs or yield signs, vision setback lines at intersections of public streets shall be established by a straight line connecting two points which are on the center lines of and 50 feet from the intersection point of the two center lines of intersecting streets. (2) In the vision setback area, no structure of any kind shall be permitted which exceeds a height of three feet above the elevation of the center of the intersection, except necessary highway and traffic signs, public utility lines and open fences through which there is clear vision, nor shall any fence or plant material be permitted which obscures safe vision of the approaches of the intersection. Proposed: VISION SETBACK An unoccupied triangular space at the intersection of a street, alley or driveway as established hereinafter in this chapter. 535-10 Height and yard modifications. D. Vision setback. A triangular area shall be maintained clear of obstructions at the intersection of streets, alleys and driveways. Unless excepted, no building or structure greater than 12 inches in width shall be allowed between a height of three to ten feet above the surface of the roadway, alley or driveway, nor shall any plant material be allowed which obscures safe vision of the intersection. Streetlights, traffic signs, utility poles, and tree trunks shall be excepted, and fencing may only be permitted if the pickets do not obscure more than 50% of the structure. Vision triangles shall be measured as follows: (1) A vision triangle at the intersection of generally perpendicular streets shall be measured along the face of the curb to a distance of 25 feet from the intersection of the extended curb lines along both roadways. A vision triangle at the intersection of generally non- perpendicular streets shall be determined by the Village Engineer on a case-by-case basis. (2) A vision triangle at the intersection of driveways and alleys shall be measured along the edge of the driveway or public alley and the back edge of the intersecting sidewalk to a distance of 10 feet along both sides of the alley and the sidewalk. 9 of 16 A LLEY S TREET S TREET LO T LIN E LO T LIN E ACCESSO RY BUIL DING PRINCIPAL BUIL DING DRIVEW AY Fig u r e 535- 10- 1 : Vision Triangle S IDEW A LK S IDEW A LK 25 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 of 16 Vision Setback Area current issues and fencing examples 11 of 16 12 of 16 13 of 16 14 of 16 15 of 16 16 of 16