_06232026-2644

1 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2026 3930 N. Murray Avenue, Village of Shorewood, WI 53211 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 Holtz 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 He agreed it was outdated but it never rose to the level of attention that prompted an update.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 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. 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. 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. Adjournment. 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