Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan commission advances discussion on ADUs, household definition and basements; public input sought
Summary
The Shorewood Plan Commission continued work on a 2025 housing initiative that would allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs), propose raising the household adult limit from three to four, and remove the prohibition on sleeping space in basements; staff will return with refined proposals and public engagement plans.
The Shorewood Plan Commission advanced discussion on three housing‑policy items — accessory dwelling units (ADUs), an updated household definition, and removing the ban on sleeping space in basements — and asked staff to return with refined materials for public engagement.
Planning staff said ADUs are smaller independent residential units accessory to a primary one‑ or two‑unit household and can be internal (attic or basement), attached (small addition) or detached (conversion of an accessory building such as a garage). Staff presented examples and regulations used elsewhere and noted ADUs are not currently permitted in Shorewood.
Staff cited reference documents used in the village’s 2025 initiative, including a comprehensive housing market study and the Village comprehensive plan, and compared local options with other Wisconsin cities. Wauwatosa has allowed ADUs since 2019 but built only two in that period, staff said, and Wauwatosa now offers incentives to encourage construction. Milwaukee recently reintroduced ADU permissions; staff said Milwaukee’s rules allow units up to 1,000 square feet (and up to 1,300 square feet on very large lots) while Wauwatosa’s ADU maximum is 900 square feet. Staff also noted that Milwaukee added an owner‑occupancy requirement at the time of construction but that the village found it difficult to enforce such a requirement after an ADU is built.
Staff highlighted parking and short‑term‑rental enforcement as recurring public concerns. Staff described two common approaches: require property owners to retain existing parking for the primary dwelling while not imposing a new parking requirement for the ADU (Wauwatosa), or not require additional parking for 1‑ and 2‑unit buildings (Milwaukee). The presenter warned that parking mandates can push homeowners to pave yard area for vehicle space, which some commissioners said could have unintended stormwater and neighborhood‑character consequences.
On household definition, staff proposed updating the code to permit up to four unrelated adults to live together (changing the current cap from three), add civil unions and domestic partnerships to the definition, and move child‑by‑blood/adoption/guardianship language into a separate category. Commissioners voiced support for raising the adult limit to four to better accommodate shared living arrangements and multigenerational households.
Staff also proposed striking the village code line that prohibits basement spaces from being used for sleeping or as dwelling units; staff called this a minor cleanup that aligns with other housing goals and said it will be included in the public‑engagement materials.
Public comment: several residents and a property owner spoke during the meeting. Barbara Kylie Miller (4051 N. Towner Ave.) praised the packet materials and urged protections such as restricting ADUs from rear/side‑yard setbacks; she also asked that neighborhood fencing rules remain clear if ADUs are permitted. "I thought the information on the ADUs in your packet was very interesting," Miller said. Sally Dragarian (4060 N. Farwell) said she and her spouse had considered living arrangements that an ADU would support and noted parking realities in her neighborhood: "If we were to build an ADU, it would be where the garage is. And it would be really, impossible to build an ADU if we had to retain garage parking." Applicant and property owner Andrew Burkholtz also spoke in favor of ADUs as an option, saying they can incentivize owners to address parking and site‑condition issues.
Next steps: staff said they will prepare more refined draft regulations and a public‑engagement plan for the fall. The commission indicated it would like to move the ADU discussion to broader public outreach and return recommendations to the village board after community input. No ordinance changes were adopted at this meeting.
Distinctions: the meeting was a discussion and direction‑for‑further‑work meeting, not a decision. Staff will research existing examples within the village, consult building inspection records for potential preexisting units, and present draft code language and outreach materials at a future meeting.
Ending: the commission asked staff to return in September with refined materials and a recommended public‑engagement strategy; commissioners flagged parking, enforcement of short‑term rentals and owner‑occupancy limits as central issues for outreach.
