Shorewood City Council Meeting Feb. 23, 2026

NOTE: Relevant links are at the end of this article.

The main event at this meeting was Watten Ponds 2nd Addition. This subdivision is possibly the most hotly contested project in Shorewood in the last 15-20 years–if not longer. You may have seen the signs around town. Residents’ research, tenacity and decorum have proven to be a master class for challenging local government. For that reason, SCA is deviating from the normal 90 second read for council meeting summaries.

Item 2: Claims List
Expenditures of note on the Claims List:

Accounts payable totaled $440,452.00
TIF $77,351
Bolton & Menk $41,574
League of MN Cities $40,320
Magney $29,383 (SE Well maintenance & Repair)
Hwy 7 Corridor Study $18,736

Item 2H – Moved off the Consent Agenda (items that would have been approved with no discussion.)

Jeanna Raap was hired as a part time employee at the South Shore Center. DiGruttolo praised her 10 years of volunteer service and for being “the friendly face” that greeted visitors to the Center.

Item 4C – Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Watten Ponds 2nd Addition

After extensive public testimony at Matters From the Floor (MFTF) (see here at 02:30)and painstakingly thorough council deliberation (see here at 01:34:05), the Council voted 4–1 to move the EAW forward. Labadie was the dissenting vote.

More than 400 citizens signed the petition requesting the EAW. During MFTF neighbors raised concerns about wetland adjacency [to Lake Minnetonka], tree preservation, grading accuracy, and the city’s interpretation of state environmental statutes. The neighborhood had previously presented research, testimony, and letters to the council, framing key issues, including flaws in data presented by planner Griffiths. Several speakers presented independent surveys and GIS measurements that questioned previously submitted data from Planner Griffiths. Others emphasized the loss of mature forest canopy–one of the last remaining fragments of the Big Woods – and the cumulative impacts of development.

A vote was planned at this meeting to accept or deny the application for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Interestingly, information material given for council study in preparation for the meeting included only a resolution denying the application, implying that city staff was confident about the outcome.

NOTE: The EAW process is not an approval or denial of a project; rather, it is a structured review designed to evaluate potential environmental impacts, identify correction measures, and ensure informed decisions before the final project is considered.

“Residents are paying attention. Residents are asking the city council-who are residents-and the applicant, who is a resident: ‘Do you have concern for the environment? Do you have concern for the community? Please say that you do, and then act that you do.’” – Chris Joslin, summarizing the community’s call for the council to align its actions with its stated values.

One speaker repeatedly questioned the city’s process, asking why the interpretation of the parcel’s developability had changed from prior years, and why an incomplete application was moving forward.

“What has changed?” – Dave Vierthaler, citing a 2024 email exchange with former
Planning Director Marie Darling, wherein she stated the property could not be developed.

The Council engaged in substantive questioning of city staff and the attorney, and ultimately chose a process that prioritized information and transparency. Council member DiGruttolo pointed out that requiring an EAW reflects a commitment to due diligence, careful review, and accountability, rather than a rubber stamp. She also questioned the Planning Commission Chair about the commission’s detailed discussions relating to the project and the comprehensive plan. He deferred multiple times to the planning director or city attorney.

The developer/applicant, Gravity Investments, LLC, disagreed with the residents and the council. Although residents had sent Gravity a letter imploring them to do the right thing by agreeing to an EAW, the response was negative.

Tom Goodrum, the consultant for Gravity, did not mince words: “Preparing an EAW assessment for a fully compliant two lot subdivision is an injustice to professional city staff, city consultants, [and the] watershed.”

The council’s subsequent deliberation was thorough, focusing heavily on the legal minutiae of the EAW exemption. Council member Gorham (a former planning commissioner) said he had never seen an application move forward with so many unanswered questions or wrong pieces of information.

“Unfortunately, the city attorney gave an interpretation based on federal law, but federal law doesn’t apply in Minnesota. Minnesota law applies in Minnesota, and under Minnesota law, this is an adjacent wetland.”  – Atty. Todd Murtha, challenging legal reasoning provided by city planner Griffiths for an exemption.

The original information presented showed that the ponds on the property were not “adjacent” to Lake Minnetonka. However, when questions were asked about the ponds’ adjacency to Lake Minnetonka, it became obvious that incomplete maps were used failing to show that a direct connection to the lake did exist. At that discovery, many residents protested from the back of the room, knowing the maps were wrong. Further discussion proved the residents correct: there is connectivity to the lake via culverts under Eureka and Birch Bluff roads and then a drainage ditch directly into the lake.

Council member DiGruttolo asked Griffiths if he had physically walked the site. He replied that he had not been there that day. She pressed him further and after a rapid back and forth, he admitted that he had not been there since the application had been filed. Before DiGruttolo could go further, the mayor called for a five minute break.

Note: In an action like this, the city staff is responsible for administering and enforcing policies and ordinances fairly and equitably. Meanwhile, council members are elected to represent the community’s voice, values, and long-term interests within those rules. Both functions are essential to effective local government.

The Watten Ponds process is not over. What happens next? When the council approves an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) it triggers a 30-day public comment period, publication in the EQB Monitor, and, if significant, mandates an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Source: Minnesota Environmental Quality Board

4D. Council approval of the Parks System Final Plan. Approved on a 5-0 vote.

Next City Council meeting: Mar. 9, 2026. We’ll be watching.

Related Links: Share with your neighbors on social media!
City Council Meeting Feb 23, 2026 (watch any time)
Public Background-Packet for this meeting-read it
Watten Ponds 2nd Addition
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
About Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
More info about Watten Ponds 2nd Addition
Park System Master Plan