Development Code Ordinance Text Amendment- Chapters 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111 and 115
Motion #1
To close the public hearing.
Motion #2
Recommend that the city council approve text amendments to Development Code to Chapters 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111 and 115 as proposed.
Alternative Motion #2
To table consideration of the proposed text amendment to Development Code to Chapters 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111 and 115 until the planning commissions regularly scheduled meeting on November 24, 2026. The planning commission would like further information or review of the following areas:
The planning commission is being asked to hold a public hearing and review the proposed update to the city’s development code. The update addresses changes to zoning districts, subdivision requirements, development and design standards, use-specific standards, and shoreland management ordinance. The purpose of the hearing is to receive public comment and provide a recommendation to the city council regarding the proposed language.
The development code update began in 2019 and was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic. Work resumed in early 2025 and was guided by periodic workshop discussion with both the planning commission and city council. Following planning commission and council workshop discussion and direction, staff has worked with planning consultants HKGI to review the draft and refine the proposed text amendment changes, and facilitate public engagement.
The attached chapters reflect the draft prepared for public hearing. The below summary highlights the major changes to policy and development standards for the commission’s discussion and consideration.
Project goals
The development code is the part of city code that controls how individual properties can be used and how buildings can be constructed. The zoning code divides the city into districts with different allowable uses and standards for each district. The zoning code also includes standards which apply to all types of development, such as landscaping, screening, parking, lighting, fencing, architectural design, and signage.
The project aims to update the City’s development code to make it easier to understand and use, reflect current practices and state laws, and align with the Shoreview 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The update will support a variety of housing options and reinvestment, protect existing neighborhoods and natural resources, and advance the City’s sustainability goals.
Residential Zoning
The city is working to increase housing options. The current zoning code is slightly outdated and creates obstacles to building various types of housing. The city is proposing to update some of the residential districts to support a wider range of housing options, also known as “missing middle housing”.
Proposed residential zoning amendments intend to accommodate a greater variety of housing types while establishing standards for building size, placement, and compatibility with surrounding properties. These options include smaller lot sizes, duplexes, twinhomes, smaller detached homes, and accessory dwelling units. The applicable zoning district, dimensional standards, and use-specific requirements would continue to determine what can be built on an individual property.
RE- Residential Estate District
The draft retains RE20 and RE40 standards within the Residential Estate district, including minimum lot areas of 20,000 and 40,000 square feet, respectively. This differs from the earlier proposal to consolidate the district at a 20,000-square-foot minimum and informed by neighborhood discussion and engagement.
R1 - Detached Residential District
The R1 district continues to provide for single-family living but is proposed to include duplexes and twinhomes as permitted uses subject to standards. For detached single-family dwellings, the draft establishes a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet and a minimum width of 65 feet. Duplexes and twinhomes require a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum width of 75 feet. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units are proposed permitted Accessory uses within the district.
Principal residential buildings would generally be subject to a 25-foot minimum front yard setback, a 30-foot rear yard setback, and a 10-foot side yard setback from dwelling area. A zero setback may be permitted at a shared wall. A 40-foot minimum street setback applies along minor arterial roadways. Shoreland standards would also apply where a property is within 1000' of a DNR classified water body.
R1A-Mixed Detached and Attached Residential District
The proposed R1A district would accommodate single-family and two- to three-family dwellings on lots smaller than those in the RE and R1 districts. The district is intended for properties along arterial or collector roads, on the perimeter of a residential neighborhood, or on unique sites that provide an opportunity for infill development.
The district requires a minimum zoned area of 1.5 acres. Within that area, detached single-family lots would require at least 6,000 square feet and 50 feet of width. Duplexes, twinhomes, and triplexes would require 3,000 square feet of lot area and 25 feet of lot width per dwelling unit.
The draft establishes a 35-foot maximum building height, a 30-foot rear yard setback for principal structures, and a five-foot side yard setback, with a 10-foot side setback when adjacent to an R1 district dwelling. Shared walls may have a zero setback. Maximum lot coverage would be 55 percent, with an increase to 60 percent where qualifying best management practices are provided.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Accessory dwelling units provide a smaller independent dwelling on the same property as a detached single-family home. The draft includes standards for units located within or attached to the principal home and units within a detached accessory building. A permit would be required, and only one accessory dwelling unit would be allowed per detached single-family dwelling.
The underlying property must remain in single ownership, and the owner must live in either the principal dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit. The accessory unit could not be sold separately or established as a separate tax parcel. A rental license would be required for the unit that is not owner-occupied.
The proposed living area is a minimum of 200 square feet and a maximum of 800 square feet. Units within or attached to the principal dwelling would also be limited to 40 percent of the building’s floor area and no more than two bedrooms. At least 850 square feet of living space must remain in the principal unit, exclusive of attached accessory building area. The property must provide at least three total off-street parking spaces, including one enclosed space.
Detached ADU's would be located in a side or rear yard and be subject to additional setback, height, and design requirements. These include a minimum 10-foot side yard setback and a rear setback equal to the building height or 10 feet, whichever is more restrictive. The maximum building height is 24 feet and cannot exceed the principal dwelling’s height; sidewalls are limited to 10 feet. The exterior design and materials must be compatible with the principal dwelling.
Mixed Use districts
The draft establishes two mixed-use districts: MU-C, Mixed Use Community, and MU-TC, Mixed Use Town Center. The districts provide a framework for residential and business uses with building placement, pedestrian connections, and site design standards intended to support walkable development. Permitted uses are identified in Chapter 107 and are subject to the applicable use-specific standards in Chapter 111.
The MU-C district is intended to provide a variety of housing types together with pedestrian-scale retail, office, and service uses. Buildings would be oriented toward an internal public street or an open space corridor connected by sidewalks. Sidewalks would be required along all street frontages, with connections between building entrances, parking, common areas, and existing walkways.
MU-C dimensional standards vary by building type. The draft establishes minimum lot widths of 40 feet for duplexes and 25 feet for townhouses or rowhouses. The build-to zone is 20 to 30 feet from the back of curb for duplexes and townhouses, and 10 to 20 feet for the first and second floors of other permitted uses. Buildings fronting an arterial road may reach 75 feet. Along local or collector roads, height above 35 feet requires an additional foot of setback for each additional foot of height, up to 75 feet. Additional setbacks apply next to lower-density residential districts.
The MU-TC district is intended to accommodate a more concentrated town center with multi-story buildings, housing, businesses, civic uses, and public gathering areas. Most permitted structures would be limited to six stories or 75 feet. Townhouses and rowhouses would be limited to 2.5 stories or 35 feet. Buildings must occupy at least 60 percent of the street frontage within the applicable build-to zone.
Parking would not be permitted between the front of a building and the street in MU-TC. The district includes provisions for an interconnected street system, sidewalks or shared use trails on both sides of streets, and public gathering areas for larger residential or mixed-use developments. Development along public waters would also be required to provide a publicly accessible shoreline trail. These provisions establish the intended development pattern as properties redevelop over time.
Arterial Development Overlay District
The Arterial Development Overlay would apply to areas identified on the zoning map along arterial roadways. It would allow taller buildings where specific standards are met, while retaining the uses allowed by the underlying zoning district.
The draft permits principal structures up to six stories or 75 feet, except residential structures containing eight or fewer units. A 50-foot setback would be required along property lines adjacent to RE, R1, R1A, or R2 zoning. When a structure is within 75 feet of one of these districts, each floor above the third floor must be set back an additional 12 feet from the floor below. These standards are intended to provide a transition between taller building massing development and adjoining residential areas.
Shoreland Management Ordinance
Shoreland provisions address dimensional standards, vegetation and land alteration, public and private facilities, subdivisions, shoreland planned unit developments, and administration. The draft proposes modifying Article VI of Chapter 115, Shoreland Management. The supplied chapter does not propose changes to Articles I through V.
Proposed language incorporates Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Shoreland Model Ordinance provisions regarding Shoreland Planned Unit Development (PUD) standards into city code. Proposed language mirrors DNR standards regarding Shoreland PUD development review and performance standards. Shoreland PUD language provides for density analysis tiers and requirements for open space and long-term protection of shoreland areas.
Additional minor amendments include provisions for permitted deck encroachments and additional lakeside patio allowances and flexibility in response to resident inquiry, and frequent code enforcement issues. Provisions clarifying vegetation preservation and maintenance standards on steep slopes, shore impact zones, and bluffs has been incorporated into the draft for consistency with DNR model ordinance standards.
DNR approval is required for any modification of the city's Shoreland Ordinance. The code is currently under review by the DNR and has been revised in response to DNR comments and recommendations. Staff has received initial concurrence from the DNR regarding current draft language, and expects approval prior to council consideration of the code.
Parking Requirements
The proposed parking standards establish minimum requirements by district and by use. Where a use-specific requirement is provided, it would apply in place of the district requirement. The standards are intended to right size parking supply to the use of a property and provide opportunities to reduce unnecessary paved areas.
Examples of the proposed district requirements include two spaces per dwelling unit in the RE and R1 districts; two spaces per unit plus one-half guest space per unit in R1A and R2 districts; and one space per studio or one-bedroom unit, or two spaces per unit with two or more bedrooms, plus one-half guest space per unit in R3. MU-C and MU-TC would require one space per bedroom for residential uses and one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area for commercial uses. The separate accessory dwelling unit parking standard described above also applies.
The draft allows parking reductions through demonstrated parking demand, proof of parking, shared parking, access to transit, or transportation demand management. Proof of parking must be provided as specified in the draft so additional spaces can be constructed if needed. Parking above the minimum may be approved through site and building plan review based on demand, with a pervious parking surface required for those additional areas.
Electric Vehicle Charging
Electric vehicle charging stations would be allowed in all zoning districts. The draft establishes installation and EV-ready requirements for new parking lots, lots adding more than 25 percent additional parking spaces, and lots where more than 25 percent of the parking area is reconstructed.
Lots with fewer than 20 spaces would have no minimum charging or EV-ready requirement. For lots with 20 to 49 spaces, residential parking would require two Level 2 stations for residents, and nonresidential parking would require one Level 2 station. For lots with 50 or more spaces, residential parking would require two Level 1 stations for residents and four Level 2 stations for guests; nonresidential parking would require two Level 2 or higher stations. Both larger categories would require 10 percent EV-ready spaces for Level 2 or higher charging and access to an installed charger from at least one accessible parking space.
Waiver may be permitted of all or a portions of the required charging spaces where installation costs exceed five percent of the total project cost or utilities are not reasonably available to provide sufficient electrical capacity. Additional standards address location, setbacks, pedestrian access, maintenance, and compatibility with the site.
Bicycle parking
Bicycle parking would be required for dwellings with three or more units and nonresidential uses when there is new development, a building addition exceeding 25 percent of existing square footage, or a parking improvement adding more than 25 percent additional spaces.
The amendment requires one bicycle parking space per 10 automobile parking spaces, with a minimum of four bicycle spaces. Schools would provide one bicycle space per 10 students. Racks would generally be located within 50 feet of building entrances, be securely anchored, and be placed to avoid pedestrian conflicts. The draft also recognizes lockers and secure enclosures for longer-term storage.
Landscaping and Screening
The landscaping and screening provisions address the appearance of development, protection of adjoining properties, and the establishment of planted areas. Single-unit and two-unit dwellings would be required to provide at least two trees per lot, including one in the front yard, with each tree from a different genus.
Nonresidential and multi-unit residential development would provide landscaped yards along streets and meet the applicable tree planting requirements. The draft includes buffer widths and planting requirements based on the relationship between adjoining uses. Buffer widths range from 30 feet for specified residential transitions to 50 feet for mixed-use, commercial, or office districts adjoining residential uses, and 60 feet for business park or industrial districts adjoining residential uses. Other district-specific setbacks and screening requirements would also apply.
The standards address screening of parking, loading, outdoor storage, and mechanical equipment. Buffer landscaping is intended to provide a visual screen within three years of installation. These requirements should be reviewed with the district standards to ensure that development provides an appropriate transition to surrounding properties.
Administration and Subdivision Standards
In addition to the topics above, the draft includes changes to the administration of development applications. Chapter 103 provides an administrative review process for qualifying minor site plan amendments, including structural additions involving 10 percent or less of total floor area, site modifications involving 10 percent or less of existing site area, parking lot or driveway modifications, and fences. These applications must comply with ordinance requirements.
Similarly, administrative approval provisions are proposed for minor Subdivision applications proposing boundary adjustments, or the creation of three (3) or fewer residential properties. These applications must comply with ordinance requirements.
Zoning Map
No property rezonings or zoning map amendments are proposed or requested through the text amendments.
Community Engagement
The public review process has included opportunities to learn about the proposed changes and provide feedback. The project’s online materials include a StoryMap and the Konveio draft code review and comment platform communicated through social media, open house meetings, qr code distribution and email. These tools are intended to help residents and property owners understand the update and review specific code provisions. The Konveio website was available for code public comment from July-September to receive feedback from the public on the draft text. Common areas of public comment received are highlighted below:
Staff recommends that the planning commission hold the required Public Hearing, review the draft and forward the amendment to the city council with a recommendation for adoption.
The planning commissions recommendation should identify any revisions the commission wishes to include before council consideration.
If the commission believes the text amendments requires further discussion, modification or consideration, staff recommends the commission table consideration of the proposed text amendments for discussion at the regularly scheduled planning commission meeting on November 24, 2026 with direction on the additional information needed.