Loading...
11-01-11 Plan Comm Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2011 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE ARNST (Nov) ______ GENG (Open) ______ HASEK (Open) ______ HUTCHINS (Dec) ______ CHARBONNET (Open) ______ GARELICK (Open) ______ DAVIS (Oct) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 18, 2011  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Don and Kiki Gloude Location: 4675 Fatima Place 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – DYNAMIC SIGN REGULATIONS 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) 4. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE 5. SMITHTOWN CROSSING 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 10. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  11. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2011 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek and Hutchins; Planning Director Nielsen; Administrator Heck; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, approving the agenda for as presented. Motion passed 7/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  September 20, 2011 Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2011, amended in Item 1, Page 2, Paragraph 8, Sentence 1, change “Arnst commented that the striped on-road trail on Smithtown Road, which was a compromise in the first place, was originally planned to be on both sides of the road but only one side has a wider shoulder striped.” to “Arnst commented that the striped on-road trail on Smithtown Road was a compromise reached when a trail could not be built at the time Smithtown was reconstructed. The striping was done as 2 foot – 4 foot shoulders. When the road was seal coated several years ago, the striping was changed to eliminate the shoulder on the north side, contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.”, and in Paragraph 10 replace “Commissioner Arnst noted that the City needs to keep the brush trimmed back along the trails.” with “Commissioner Arnst noted that in 2000-2001 when the Park Commission did a trail walk on Enchanted Island, they agreed that a trail was not feasible, but at the time recommended that the brush be kept trimmed back to allow pedestrians to walk closer to the edge and an escape route if needed.”. Motion passed 7/0.  October 4, 2011 Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2011, as amended in Item 3, Page 3, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1, change “Commissioner Hasek said he doesn't see three cars per minute as a huge problem” to “Commissioner Hasek said he doesn't see one car every three minutes, or 20+/- cars per hour as a huge problem”. Motion passed 7/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 2 of 10 1. GUESS SPEAKERS – URBAN FARMING Audrey Matson and Bob Lies, EggPlant Urban Farm Company Chair Geng introduced Bob Lies, with EggPlant Urban Farm Company, who was present to discuss urban farming. He thanked Mr. Lies for taking the time to come this evening. Mr. Lies stated that he and his wife own and operate EggPlant Urban Farm Supply; a small farm supply store located in St. Paul. They focus on food production and preservation. They teach classes on chicken keeping and they sell laying chickens only. There is a huge interest in local, small flock chicken keeping. Mr. Lies explained in St. Paul the permitting cost varies based on the number of chickens. In Minneapolis it’s a multi-animal permit and it’s a flat fee. The permits must be renewed annually. Some cities exclude chickens from their list of prohibited farm animals that can be raised in the city. Some municipalities treat chickens as either farm animals or an exotic. Others treat chickens like any other bird (e.g., a parrot). A chicken is kenneled like a dog. Most municipalities have a general ordinance about animals and chickens are usually addressed in the ordinance. From his vantage point there is no reason not to be able to have chickens if you can have other pets. The drawbacks to owning chickens are the same as for any other pet. Mr. Lies then explained a broiler chicken (a chicken raised for meat) has a much different life span (3 months) than a laying chicken (5 – 10 years, but only lay eggs for a portion of that). The number of vets that treat chickens is growing in Minneapolis and St. Paul as are the number of small scale butchers. Mr. Lies reviewed the benefits of owning a chicken. They can exist in a small space. Chickens require less care than a dog but more care than a cat. Hens are quiet, but a rooster is noisy. Hens make a noise when there is a predator and when they lay an egg. Hens are dormant at night. St. Paul does not allow roosters; Minneapolis does as long as they are permitted. Commissioner Hasek asked if you can quiet a rooster. Mr. Lies stated there is no way to change a rooster’s behavior. A rooster is going to crow at all hours. Mr. Lies noted you do not need a rooster for egg production. It’s only needed to fertilize the eggs. Chair Geng asked if there is any particular disease chickens carry that people should be concerned about. Mr. Lies responded the diseases are much less than those carried by dogs or other animals. Mr. Lies explained the numbers of diseases that are transmitted from poultry to people are fewer and less serious than those transmitted from a dog or cat. Geng then asked about transmission of diseases from chickens to other animals. Mr. Lies stated that is very unlikely because they are confined. Things such as the west nile virus and the avian flu can be transmitted to domestic flocks, but in general that doesn’t happen. Well maintained coops and well maintained run areas help to minimize transmission to domestic flocks. Mr. Lies explained chickens play a role in the composting cycle. They can eat excess food scraps and other stuff can be used for their bedding. Their manure is safe to put into vegetable gardens after going through the normal composting process; that is not true for dogs or cats. It makes a great fertilizer. They do some forms of pest control. Guinea hens are famous for tick control, but they are noisier and they can devastate a vegetable garden. Chickens have a pecking order and they will eat each other. Commissioner Garelick asked if chickens relate to humans. Mr. Lies responded they do but they are not going to cuddle like a dog or cat. Mr. Lies stated they encourage people to handle their chickens. Mr. Lies explained there are a large variety of chickens. Last year his company sold over 600 chicks for small flocks of 3 – 5 chickens in urban settings. A hen lays about 260 eggs per year. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Lies explained to get a permit in Minneapolis an applicant has to show proof that their neighbors have no issue with it. St. Paul requires no rooster approval from 75 percent of the applicants’ neighbors within a 150-foot radius. St. Paul’s permit fee is $25 for up to three chickens with a renewal fee of $15. For more than three chickens the permit fee is $72 with a renewal fee of $27. The rooster ordinance varies. He recommended making an ordinance very clear. Council Liaison Woodruff asked Mr. Lies what his perspective is about ducks and geese in the context of permitting for chickens. Mr. Lies responded he considers ducks to be about the same; they are a ground nesting animal. It’s extremely important for an owner to have a secure area for their poultry (chickens and ducks). Director Nielsen asked if cats will go after chickens. Mr. Lies responded for him it’s not a problem because he raises larger chickens. The bigger concern is dogs, particularly bird dogs. Bird dogs will just kill the chickens; they won’t eat them. He has never lost a chicken to a cat. He has lost a couple to raccoons. Chickens, ducks and geese need to have a structure that keeps them safe. Mr. Lies stated there is a parade of coops in the Twin Cities that people can go and look at. He noted that his customers are not the immigrants who are raising chickens anyway because they have always had chickens. It never occurs to them to ask if they can have chickens; they assume they can. Most of the people who come to their store are educated, middle class people who are aware of food issues and trying to do things organically. Raising hens is not an economic necessity. Commissioner Hasek asked if the number of predator animals increase if farm animals are raised in residential areas by a significant number of people. Mr. Lies responded there may be an increase in the number of sightings, but not an in the increase in numbers because predators are not being fed. Hasek then asked if it would bring the predators in closer contact with people living at a property or adjacent to one where the farm animals are being raised. Mr. Lies responded he does not have the statistics to prove that either way. He stated the issue with raccoons is less about biting people with their rabies. There is an issue with their feces. Hasek related he has heard from someone who lives on a farm and raises chickens that a person has to be somewhat aware of rats. He asked Mr. Lies if that is an issue in urban areas as well. Mr. Lies responded he has not had issues with rats but other people have. He has had an issue with having a few field mice. He recommended an ordinance include a provision requiring feed to be stored in an animal proof container. Because farm animals have to be fed there will be food available for opportunistic animals. He also recommended locating coops a distance from the house. A kenneled dog with food outside also attracts similar animals. In response to a question from Director Nielsen, Mr. Lies recommended people raise 3 – 5 hens if they are going to have them. He stated you don’t want to have a single chicken; three is a good number. A hen lays only one egg a day. He explained that in order to raise hens as a business venture for selling eggs a person would need to have 10 – 20 hens, noting that is doable in a small space. In an urban area, space limits the amount of chickens a person can raise. His per-chicken space recommendations are 2 – 4 feet for interior space and 6 – 10 feet for run area. Commissioner Hutchins asked Mr. Lies to display pictures of coops. Mr. Lies showed a picture of the one he and his wife have. The coop has room for 4 – 5 chickens. He highlighted the area around the coop as well. Commissioner Arnst asked if Minneapolis and St. Paul have regulations regarding where the coop can be located. Mr. Lies responded they do. Minneapolis’ ordinance clearly stipulates a coop is an outbuilding CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 4 of 10 and therefore it has to be in compliance with all regulations for outbuildings. A site plan has to be included with the permit application. Mr. Lies stated hens will typically stop laying eggs in the winter here because there is not enough light. Therefore, people will typically heat the coop with a heat lamp or something with radiant heat. Chickens do not need a lot of heat. They will keep each other warm. In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Mr. Lies showed a picture of a few more elaborate coops. Commissioner Hasek asked if there is a requirement to visually screen coops from adjacent properties in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Mr. Lies stated he doesn’t know the answer to that. Hasek stated screening is needed for people who put up an unsightly coop. Mr. Lies stated he and his wife have a lot of personal experience about chickens. He noted he is just an enthusiast. Chair Geng thanked Mr. Lies for coming this evening and sharing his experiences. Commissioner Hasek asked if chickens can live in the run area. Mr. Lies responded they could. 2. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission had been provided with a copy of second draft of Ordinance Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals. This draft is in the City Code format and it includes most of the suggestions made by the Commissioners. This draft does not include a permit process. The Commission may want to consider adding that. It does not address dogs because they are addressed in Chapter 701 of the City Code. Commissioner Arnst asked if homeowner associations can prohibit any of the animals specifically addressed in the Ordinance. Director Nielsen responded they can. Arnst then asked why the Commission was asked to address this. Nielsen explained the City doesn’t have an ordinance addressing farm animals. A property owner who believes their property is considered a farm had indicated they may raise farm animals on their property. Today someone could raise chickens in the City because there is nothing prohibiting them from doing that. Director Nielsen noted the draft Ordinance divides farm animals into two classifications; rural and urban. It does allow for keeping chickens, ducks, geese and so forth. He commented some residents raise bees and the City does not have a regulation against doing that. Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission discussed the base Ordinance during its October 4, 2011, meeting. During that meeting he solicited suggestions from the Commissioners and also asked to send him their additional comments on it via email. He noted he received comments from two Commissioners and those have been incorporated into the second draft as best as he could. He also noted Commissioner Arnst had suggested to him that it wasn’t necessary to address wild animals in the ordinance. He stated that is up to the Commission. Director Nielsen stated the main purpose of the Ordinance is to address rural farm animals and to make reasonable provisions for urban farm animals. He then stated it does tie into discussions the Planning Commission has had about sustainability. He noted that after an article was published in a newspaper CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 5 of 10 about raising chickens in urban areas the City received a fair number of calls about whether or not the City allows that. Commissioner Arnst stated the Ordinance does speak to sustainability and that she is open to allowing residents to raise small urban farm animals such as chickens, geese and ducks provided there are restrictions on where a coop can be located. She stated coops should not be located in a front yard or in a corner of the back yard next to an adjacent property. It should be up close to the property owner’s house. The animals need to be contained and quiet, and neighbors should not have to be exposed to the smell. Director Nielsen explained Section 704.09 subd. 2(b) states “The shelter structure may not be located closer to the boundary line of adjacent property than it is to the principal structure on the animal owner's property, but in any event not less than 10 feet away from the boundary line of the adjacent property.” He noted that it applies to bees as well. Commissioner Hasek asked if doves or pigeons are addressed in the Ordinance. Director Nielsen responded they are not included in the definition of urban farm animal. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that definition of rural farm animal states “… and including, but not limited to other animals …”. The urban farm animal definition does not include that and maybe something similar should be added. Director Nielsen commented that pigeons are banned in the City of Brooklyn Park. Nielsen noted that he purposefully kept the list of allowable urban farm animals limited to food producing type animals. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Ordinance requires that neighbors must approve a permit. Director Nielsen responded it does not. Hasek suggested it be added. He noted that Mr. Lies recommended the Ordinance be very clear. Hasek recommended the Ordinance be more inclusive rather than less inclusive. He recommended a permit process be added and that the permit fee cover associated administrative costs. He recommended the coop be screened at the ground level, from a deck (independent of what story the deck is on), and so forth. Nielsen stated some coops don’t look any different than a shed so he questioned having to screen them. Nielsen then stated the run area is something different. Hasek stated if the style of the structure isn’t going to be complimentary to the residential house he suggested it be screened. He asked if the structure should have to fit with the character of the principal structure. Nielsen explained that only applies to outbuildings that are over 1200 square feet in size. Hasek stated he doesn’t care if his neighbors want to raise urban farm animals. He just doesn’t want to have that part of his life. Commissioner Charbonnet suggested the Ordinance contain a provision to require animal feed be kept in an animal proof galvanized container to reduce the possibility of attracting predatory animals into the area. He also suggested adding regulations regarding the disposal of dead farm animals. Director Nielsen noted the draft Ordinance doesn’t address nuisance animals. He questioned if predatory animals could be addressed in that to-be-added area, but he wasn’t sure how that could be enforced. Council Liaison Woodruff stated there have to be some guidelines regarding where the animals will be allowed to roam. Should they be confined to a fenced in area or should they be allowed to roam freely? In response to a comment from Council Liaison Woodruff, Nielsen explained Section 704.09 subd. 2(e) states “An urban farm animal must not be kept on residentially-zoned property if it is being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially-zoned property.” Woodruff noted that would prohibit a bee keeper from selling honey. There was ensuing discussion about the location provision in Section 704.09 subd. 2(a) which states “An urban farm animal must not be kept or maintained on the front yard of the property, as defined by the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 6 of 10 Zoning Code.” and in Section 704.09 subd. 2(b) which states “The shelter structure may not be located closer to the boundary line of adjacent property than it is to the principal structure on the animal owner's property, but in any event not less than 10 feet away from the boundary line of the adjacent property.” Director Nielsen stated “on the front yard” be changed to “in the front yard”. He then stated he will refine the location provision language to stipulate the shelter structure has to be located in the buildable area of the back yard. Commissioner Davis suggested the Ordinance allow some flexibility for location, noting her own lot configuration and topography would not allow her to locate a structure in the buildable area of her backyard. She stated a site plan review would provide additional information about a lot. Director Nielsen stated he is not sure it’s possible to accommodate every lot configuration in the Ordinance. Commissioner Hasek suggested neighbors be given the opportunity to review site plans before they give their approval. Commissioner Arnst suggested the Planning Commission consider limiting the size of the shelter structure and run area to the sizes recommended by Mr. Lies. Commissioners Arnst and Hasek suggested the number of chickens be limited to four. Commissioner Davis said a number of chicken ordinances indicates almost all of them are for 3 – 5 birds. Council Liaison Woodruff suggested Staff research chicken-only ordinances to see what they include. Chair Geng cautioned against making the Ordinance expensive to comply with. If it’s too expensive people may be unlikely to apply for the permit. He stated that Mr. Lies indicated that high income people generally don’t have chicken coops. He clarified he was not against screening a shelter structure. He stated making it too expensive seems to be contrary to sustainability objectives. Commissioner Arnst stated she did not think there will be influx of permit applications to raise chickens because of the expense associated with raising chickens. She suggested a solution should be put in place before there is a need to address complaints from neighbors. Chair Geng asked if there will be criteria for each type of farm animal. Tonight the focus has been on chickens but there are other types of urban farm animals. Council Liaison Woodruff stated today there is no recourse if a neighbor has issues with what someone is doing. The Ordinance provides the City with a means for addressing complaints from neighbors. He then stated he agreed that the Ordinance should not be that specific and/or onerous that no one can afford to do it. Director Nielsen asked if chickens should be allowed to run within a fenced in yard or if they should be confined to a run area. Chair Geng stated to reduce attracting predatory animals it may be better to require the entire yard to be fenced. Commissioner Davis explained predators are not the issue for a person living in Duluth who raises chickens. Dogs are more of a problem. Chickens go into the shelter at night when the sun goes down. Davis recommended chickens be kept in a fenced in and roofed area. Council Liaison Woodruff stated requiring a fenced in area is a good idea. Chickens should not be allowed to roam freely in a yard that does not have a fence around it. If birds fly over the fence, that should be addressed as part of a nuisance provision. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Arnst asked if noise will be addressed in the nuisance ordinance. Director Nielsen responded it would, as will odor. Director Nielsen explained the draft Ordinance is trying to prevent rural farm animals and allow for urban farm animals. He asked if the Commission had problems with the list of rural animals. Commissioner Arnst stated the definitions for both rural farm animals and urban farm animals trouble her. Someone will find away to work around them. She commented the distinction between them is size. There was consensus that if someone wants to raise an urban farm animal that is not included in the definition then can submit a request to amend the Ordinance. Director Nielsen noted there is no need to have a public hearing on this Ordinance. He asked what the Commission thought about the wild animal section of the Ordinance. He noted he doesn’t think there is any harm in including it. Administrator Heck explained a few cities have Ordinances that prohibit keeping certain types of wild animals. Chair Geng suggested changing Item D in the definition of wild animal from “Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies, except domestic animals such as cows” to “Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies”. Director Nielsen stated this Ordinance needs the blessing from the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) because some of it must be enforced by the SLMPD. Chair Geng asked who on City staff will be qualified to inspect this stuff. Director Nielsen explained if it’s a matter of the dimensional requirements the Building Official will. Other things will be enforced on a complaint basis. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission chose to delete commercial kennels because they are not allowed in the City. The City does allow veterinary clinics with over night care and indoor kennels. He noted if there are State rules on this they will be adopted by reference in the Ordinance. Chair Geng asked if pot belly pigs are considered to be a swine. Director Nielsen explained under the draft Ordinance it would be considered a rural farm animal. Geng stated a lot of people in other parts of the country have pot belly pigs and they have rescue groups for them. Commissioner Hasek stated there are people who keep red tailed hawks and odd things like that. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the definition of wild animals specifically excludes birds. Director Nielsen stated he will make the revisions discussed. He noted that under Penalty he included reference to Chapter 104 General Penalty and Enforcement and any violation of this Ordinance would be a Class A Offence which carries a $100 fine. He asked the Commission if that seems fair. There was a response that it does. 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE Director Nielsen stated during a Council discussion about various licenses the City issues the topic of massage therapist licensing came up. Today the City licenses the individual therapist; not the business. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 8 of 10 explained a business owner who has quite a few therapists providing services at his location expressed concern to the City about what it costs the therapists to get a license. There is a $50 license fee and a $100 investigative fee. Council changed the license to be a twelve-month license versus a yearly license. For liquor sales and tobacco sales the license is for the business and if one of the business’ employees has a problem the business suffers. He stated he and Administrator Heck have been discussing if it would be more effective to have the massage therapy business licensed. The business owner would suffer the consequences and therefore they may pay closer attention to what the employee is doing. The owner could have their license suspended for 60 days and for the second offense the license could be revoked. Commissioner Garelick stated this would have to deal with how the therapists are classified. Are they independent contractors or employees? That would make a difference in how the business should be dealt with. Commissioner Hasek stated it’s irrelevant whether or not the therapist is either employed by or contracted by the business owner; the business will still suffer consequences. Commissioner Arnst asked if the rules apply to physicians’ assistants and dental hygienists in the City. Director Nielsen explained the City doesn’t require an individual license for someone who works in a doctor’s office. Arnst recommended the business owner be licensed and the owner held responsible for the people working for the business independent of their employment status. She stated from her vantage point message therapists are being stereotyped when they are finally being recognized as an important part of health care. It’s recognized as holistic medicine. She thinks it’s archaic. She thought it inappropriate to think there is more mischief going on in a message therapy setting than in a dentist’s office. Commissioner Garelick stated the City should not generalize what people are going to be doing. Commissioner Arnst stated she took offense with the implication that a message therapist will get into more mischief. Director Nielsen stated there has been a history of mischief in that industry; therefore, it’s not without reason. Administrator Heck stated Commissioner Arnst’s recommendation is similar to the way the City handles liquor and tobacco licensing and responsibilities. Those businesses are licensed and the business is held accountable for the actions of those working for them if they violate the law and/or license and both the business and the individual pay the consequences. He then stated the business owner should be accountable. Heck then stated there are several individuals in the City who practice message therapy out of their homes. They would have to apply for the business license. He explained the therapists have to go through a specific type of education and training, but he did not think they are licensed by the State of Minnesota. Commissioner Hasek asked if therapists who go to the client to provide services have to be licensed. Director Nielsen responded they do. Chair Geng stated he supported Commissioner Arnst’s recommended approach from an administrative perspective. It would hold the business owner responsible. It makes a lot of sense. Council Liaison Woodruff stated because this profession is not licensed by the State there should a requirement on the business operator to only employ or contract with people who have a certain set of credentials. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Garelick asked what the reasons are for denying a license after a background check has been done. Director Nielsen explained if they don’t have the required number of hours, the insurance, and one more primary reason. The City does not do a criminal background check on them. If the business were to be licensed the City would have a background check conducted to ensure they haven’t had any related crimes. Council Liaison Woodruff stated for a liquor license a criminal background check is requested. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought that would be a good idea. Operating a business is a privilege not a right in the City. Chair Geng asked if the City wants to provide for spot checks. Administrator Heck stated the Ordinance would have to have a provision that requires the business to keep certain records and that they are subject to inspections, and then authorized City personnel can spot check to determine if things are being done correctly. Director Nielsen stated he will draft an amendment to the City’s Message Licensing Ordinance. 4. SMITHTOWN CROSSING Director Nielsen stated he was pleased with the showing at the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment study informal neighborhood meeting. All comment sheets were taken by the attendees. Unfortunately, only one was returned and it’s almost illegible. The next step in the process is to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan regarding the redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing. Chair Geng suggested when the public hearing is publicized the City should encourage the residents look at the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study report either on line or at City Hall prior to coming to the public hearing. Commissioner Arnst asked if any plans have been made to contact those property owners in the surrounding area that have not been contacted. Director Nielsen responded that is on his radar. There was consensus to schedule the public hearing on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Comp Plan amendment for November 15, 2011. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Arnst asked Administrator Heck if he has spoken with the City Engineer about the striping on Smithtown Road. Heck responded he has not. Heck noted the Road was striped before he had a chance to talk to the Engineer about it. Heck stated he will make sure it goes back to being striped the way it was when it was originally striped before striping is done in 2012. It allowed room for a bike shoulder then. He noted the City does stripe the Road every year because the paint wears off quickly. Administrator Heck explained the City is applying for a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Local Trail Connections Program Grant to construct 9500 linear feet of paved trail along Smithtown Road from the city borders of Shorewood and Victoria to the LRT Trail. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 10 of 10 Director Nielsen stated this evening he handed out a revised Planning Commission Work Plan for the remainder of 2012. Commissioner Hasek asked what the status is of the tree survey. Director Nielsen responded the Building Official is working on it but he is not sure of the status. Nielsen stated he may ask Hasek’s firm for his assistance with this. 7. NEW BUSINESS None. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for November 1, 2011. Director Nielsen stated during its next meeting the Commission will review a third draft of City Code Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals. There is a public hearing scheduled for Dynamic Signs. There may be a discussion about the capacity on water towers for cellular antennas. There will be consideration of a variance request. Also, there will be draft amendment to the Message Therapist Licensing Ordinance. If time permits, best practices for the sustainability program will be reviewed. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 10, 2011, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He noted the City’s appreciation event is scheduled for December 9, 2011, and it will be held at the Southshore Community Center. • SLUC No report was given. • Other Council Liaisons were selected as followed: October 2011 Commissioner Davis November 2011 Commissioner Arnst December 2011 Commissioner Hutchins Director Nielsen was asked to email confirmation of this out to the Commissioners. 10. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Garelick seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 18 October 2011 at 9:30 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SIIQRFWOOD 0 A NAWIMM AN M M i .. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 October 2011 RE: Gloude, Don and Kiki — Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (11.12) BACKGROUND Don and Kiki Gloude have begun a substantial remodeling and expansion of their home at 4675 Fatima Place (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). As part of the project they propose a new entry and covered porch at the front of the house. While the entry feature is considered an allowable encroachment in the residential districts, the porch is specifically precluded. For this they have requested a four —foot front yard setback variance. The property is zoned R -1 D /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland and contains the Gloude's home, attached garage, swimming pool and two small accessory buildings in the rear yard as shown on Exhibit B. At present the house is situated at 31.7 feet back from the street right -of -way. The new garage and addition will be built out to the 30 -foot required setback. The enclosed entry extends 4.5 feet into the front setback area, which is allowed under our zoning regulations. The covered porch to the left of the entry also extends 4.5 feet into the front setback, but is specifically prohibited by the Zoning Code. The lot contains 26,866 square feet of area and has a hardcover percentage of 16.4. The proposed additions to the property will bring the hardcover to 20.8 percent. The proposed floor plan is shown on Exhibit C, attached. Exhibits D -1 through D -5 contain the applicants' request letter and related exhibits. ®� � ®a� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Gloude Variance 26 October 2011 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. What is Allowed. The required front setback for the R -11) zoning district is 30 feet, the smallest front setback of all of the four single- family residential districts. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) of the Shorewood Zoning Code states: "A one story enclosed entrance for a detached single-family, two family or townhouse dwelling, existing prior to adoption of this chapter, may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. " This provision was originally intended as an energy conservation measure for older homes to be able to add on an enclosed entry that would serve as an air lock for cold air entering the house. The Gloude house was built in 1959 according to Hemlepin County Assessor's records and qualifies for this encroachment into the front setback area. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(3) of the Code states: "Terraces, steps, stoops or similar features, but not including porches or balconies in front or rear yards, provided they don't extend above the entrance floor level of the building or more than four and one -half feet into the required yard. " What this allows is the concrete stoop illustrated as a solid line on Exhibit D -3. It should be noted that the applicants' sketch of a 3' x 3' stoop, step and sidewalk is an accurate depiction of what they were told by staff. Upon closer scrutiny, the Code does allow the wider "terrace" as long as it is not covered. Consequently, the concrete terrace does not require a variance. B. What is Not Allowed. While certain ground -level features as described in A. above are allowable encroachments in front yard areas, the Code specifically precludes porches (see underlined phrase) from the list of allowable encroachments into front yards. C. Variance. The Planning Commission held a public healing to consider amendments to the Zoning Code that would address changes in state law relative to the granting of variances. Simply put, a variance is an exception to the law - in this case, zoning requirements — that allows a property owner to conform to a lesser standard than other similarly situated owners. Although the standard has changed from "hardship" to "practical difficulties" the Code still suggests that variances be granted sparingly and when in "keeping with the spirit and intent" of the Code and Comprehensive Plan. The amendment recommended by the Planning Commission has been scheduled for consideration by the City Council at its 14 November meeting. The criteria for considering variances that has been recommended by the Planning Commission is -2- Memorandum Re: Gloude Variance 26 October 2011 based on suggestions set forth by the League of Minnesota Cities. Following is how the applicants' request conforms to those criteria: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. While it is difficult to say that a covered porch is not reasonable to want, the question is — should it be allowed to encroach into what is already a minimal front yard setback? 2. The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. Shorewood's zoning regulations do not prohibit porches, it simply requires that they comply with setback requirements. 3. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Despite the relatively small size of the proposed porch, its encroachment into what is already minimal open space could be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 4. The ordinance creates "practical difficulties" in achieving the manner of use. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met. a)reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. a. Addressed in 1. above. b. The applicants' circumstances are not unique to the property. Many homes in the surrounding neighborhood have the same type of entry conditions as the applicants. With respect to the circumstances not being created by the owner, the house was built very near the minimal setback, not allowing for additions to the front of the building. The homes in the neighborhood that have fi°ont porches were built farther back, allowing for expansion. While the applicants may not have built the original house, they have inherited what the previous owner has done. c. Homes in the neighborhood east of Lake William generally comply with zoning requirements. As mentioned, many of them have the same entry condition cis the applicants. The arguments set forth by the applicants could apply throughout that neighborhood. It would be difficult to refuse the same -3- Memorandum Re: Gloude Variance 26 October 2011 exception to anyone else with a similar entry, in which case the character of the neighborhood would be affected. D. The Applicants' Case. The applicants cite four reasons for granting the variance: 1) safety; 2) handicap access; 3) use of land; and 4) aesthetics /property value. In consideration of these the following should be considered: Safety. It must be realized that with atwo -foot allowable eave overhang, the actual dimension this house is allowed is 3.7 feet. This is nearly double what many of the houses in the neighborhood have. In driving around on Fatima, Lakeway Terrace and Garden Road, many of the homes of the same vintage as the applicants' have similar entry conditions — a front entry stoop with an 18 " -24" eave above. While there have been some homes that were built back farther on the lot that have larger covered porch areas, none of them were done by variance. In most instances similarly constructed homes have addressed the ice melt issue through the use of gutters and diverters. 2. Handicap Access. In light of the discussion in A., above, the ability of the applicants to construct the larger concrete terrace appears to resolve this issue. 3. Use of Land. Again, the discussion in A. resolves this issue. 4. Aesthetics /Property Value. These factors were not part of the criteria for granting variances under the hardship standard, nor are they factors in the practical difficulties test. They are simply too subjective to use as reasons for exempting one property from the rules that others have to follow. It is worth noting that other homes in the neighborhood have addressed entry design in various ways that do not require encroachment into the required setback. For example, an "eyebrow" design where the entry is covered by a gable facing the street, directing drainage away from the doorway is not uncommon and does not contribute to a "chopped up" appearance. With respect to value, Shorewood has historically placed considerable value on the open space afforded by reasonable setback areas. As mentioned earlier, the R- 1D zoning district already has the smallest front yard setback of all the residential districts. RECOMMENDATION The applicants' request falls well short of the criteria for variances, even under the relaxed `practical difficulties" test. The arguments set forth by the applicants could apply to any number of homes in the neighborhood. That being the case, an ordinance amendment would be a more appropriate way to address the request. That way it would Memorandum Re: Gloude Variance 26 October 2011 apply to all similar properties. Any discussion of an amendment would have to include what size limitations and other conditions might apply. Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane Kiki Gloude -5- -- _j 41Z s `r EN LU — �r_ 0 co a. K ICOID 0 0 co o ia 0 8 n Rim N\ ILI UN wa vid A I M I I Eli I F - Au - o --b, A .Z` lb �.._ c ��c 9 1 'r L 9 h 4 L- L r "'. C G t,�,'/ r l � c r � jYy rl � \ w! 3 y (} G Y. off' •. 0 1 Exhibit B ' �' PROPERTY SURVEY 1 -12" 33'-8 1/2` 14-3 1/2' 6'-1 3/4" 11-2 1/4" IROUGH OPENINGS 9­6 1/2" 3'-4 1/2". 4'-4 1/2" 1'-4 1/2" 3­4 1/2". 7'-3` G 3'-10 1/2" 3­10 � NTO MIN 138 INTEGRITY WINDOWS (ALL ULTREX SE BY MARVIN RIES) 2 CUIFD306EE(REG MARVIN) 38-7/16"X 82-1/2" 016-3w 72"X 18" — 1 1 820-2W 60"X 24" 1 - L/2:. 24"X 42" 1 1 IFCR2036 -4W 96 "X 42" 1 IFCA2eSO-3W 72"X 60" 4 3 24"X 60" I IFCA2646 32 1/2' IFCA2646-2W IFCA28SO 30 GO" 1111111 Llll� 11111 60 60 IFSLP4060 UPPER LEVEL DE DIMENSION S/4X6 C)MPOSITE UPPER LEVEL �' N DIM ..... 2 G" 26"X 82-1/2" 2'4' SWING r 1 2'6" SWING 32"X 82-1/2 2 SWING 34 82-1/2" DEC,' I NIS - 38"X 82-1/2" 2'e" BIFOLD 25-1/4"X 82" STEP 31-1/4"X 82" STEP 3'0" BIFOLD 37-1/4"X 82" !�N-E 9 J 82" 82" 1: E'O" BIFOLD XX / 12" -, 6'0" BIFOLD 7 3 -1 /4 "X . 5!4X6 COMPOSITE - - 3 - - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - -- LNDG I1 hFCA2050 DECKING IFCR2e50 IFCA2646 -2W quIF03068 IFAW 2620-2W IF 82050 P SLP4050 IF SLPI SO,! IFSLP40SO IFCA20FO UIFD3068 TEMP IFSLp6e50 3/ 81 11 BATH IIL DEC��� HANGER MFG TO DECK TRUSSES BER it TACK S W/D 2'-3", !4" 3' -Ii 1/4" 12", 4­10 1 3 -2 12 BM(FLIUS II) 1 4S 1 1/2 " i t 3W 87"H D A RO HEIGHT GUEST - 2/6 9 2X6 qkl­ 4 3'-1 1/2" GARFSE \\- E­ I INS WALL It FAMILY Z - DECK �ABOVE ROOM ROOM .5 7� CLST 4/11 SIP 1 1 j J 2' 1/4'� i" >f-8 4­10 1/2" � . �,2" 2". 11-1�� 12'% 13' -7' II REA H LLL PCON CATION 2­1 1/2"z N I a 2x12 LEDGE W/ IG� �C HANGER TR SS S FROM IIM L 81 11 T E LD� l�NE As - - -- - -- - -- BLDG LINE - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - DBL H A i F- �qL­ IDI�TI �i ii R OOM - 7 SUPPL ER D- 9 2X 0 FLA G 2�LO FL�R 51 - E2 SHI TRPL w ---- N 3 PL Y 1'76"X 14"OPLAM HDR BL TRMRS (FLUSH)/D IN 3/0 0 MIN MTL UK TEP USE WALL AS GAS FOR TRUSSES 12­3" 45' -2-i 4" x oi j REMOVE � x � ---- REMOVE KITCHEN 1 3/8" REMOVE EXISTIN WALLS :XISTING REMOVE EXISTING GAT X EXISTING 2XIO 2­ 29 ._ 0 :: 2" 31-0" i 17'-g EXISTING J O FL A 20 5/11"FC SHEETROCK 1 1 1 WALLS & CLG IIu GARAGE j S `LEFIM(Tpf�)SI?fLpY� SUP UEL ;STING OR REMOVE EX" I( (OPTI SPREAD WEIR STORAGE TRUSSES) Ii rRCH PPNG EXISTING - - -- - -- - -- - -- REMOVE EXISTING ------ IP VIA-- E WALL LIVING RO OM GARAGE WALLS II I j 0, L �11 1 RAISED - BAR -- - -- - - - - I - -- - -- - -- - -- 4"CONC FLOOR W/ME SLOPED TO ODORS EFP I p2q/4 is ISLAND EXISTING� 2XLO FL� 0 - T , I j2 J� 1 ".4 :� B- 0 2­2 4­4" 3 8 EXISTING 7' -2 1/4' A IN SAIL- RAIL F.LQ ST I I DBL FT: 1 2XITCHW,'j IdP�NTRI 7�N, IFA j b! —1 - - - - - - - - -. -.- NOTE: -IF USING SFIREACI WEB STORAGE TRUSSES 29 16­0 S1 !BW IOU FRAME FRONT GARAGE USE 2X6 S�QS YO T WALL & US 3 IL 1.75 "X 5"X IS"2.0E CONT GPLAM BM x x SX. W/ 16X8 ON GAR OR W1 2 PLY 1.75'X RFT R 212%22 MDR AS REQ TONE peE I st - --- -- T --- -- W 2TEY 1.75 15 - X 9."2.0 - - -- - -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ­ 2 PLY 1.76"X 14"2.0E CONT GPL9M BM PC 1620-3] IFCA2036 COVERED 3/0 MT 0 ER DR W/DBL TAMPS - - - - - -- - -- - -- C ONC STOOP N : 2-2X 0 H ;��LO HO . M­ - ­ -m .­ a 2XL0 ST : 6 FCK646 08 ASPHA DRIVE CONC L VERIFY W/OWNER ------ GXG IN TR I GO POST W1 R BAR WRAP C INC W ALK 6 6 � 7- �1 2 ji 1 1/4" 6­6 1/2" 3­0" 7­2 1/2" 14' 10' -6 1/2" S'-O 1/2" 8­2" 2­0 /,�7 MAIN LEVEL P'LUUIL FLAN SCALE I/ 2179.42 SQ FT 7 k 10 WINDOW & DOOR SCHEDULE TAYLOR EXTERIOR DOORS FuTyl IROUGH OPENINGS -1/2"X 82" L�BR R, � NTO MIN 138 INTEGRITY WINDOWS (ALL ULTREX SE BY MARVIN RIES) 2 CUIFD306EE(REG MARVIN) 38-7/16"X 82-1/2" 016-3w 72"X 18" — 1 1 820-2W 60"X 24" 1 1 FCA2036 24"X 42" 1 1 IFCR2036 -4W 96 "X 42" 1 IFCA2eSO-3W 72"X 60" 4 1FCA20Se(I/TEMP) 24"X 60" I IFCA2646 30 sill I IFCA2646-2W IFCA28SO 30 GO" IFCA26SO-2W 60 60 IFSLP4060 48"X 60" IFSLPSOSO INTERIOR DOORS A S WIN G 20"X 82-1/2" 2 G" 26"X 82-1/2" 2'4' SWING SO -% 82-1/2:; 1 2'6" SWING 32"X 82-1/2 2 SWING 34 82-1/2" 1 13'0" SWING 38"X 82-1/2" 2'e" BIFOLD 25-1/4"X 82" 2'6" BIFOLD 31-1/4"X 82" 1 3'0" BIFOLD 37-1/4"X 82" 2 CC" SIFOLD 82" 82" 1: E'O" BIFOLD XX / 12" 6'0" BIFOLD 7 3 -1 /4 "X 1 09L I/G SWING DOOR 3 NOTES: -CONTRACTOR/OWNER TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS & NOTES: AS WITH REMODELING/ RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DIMENSIONS MAY VARY FROM DRAWING -IF TRUSS SUPPIER CHANGES/MODIFIES TRUSS DIRECT IONS/LAYOUT TRUSS MFG IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INFORMING CONTRACTOR OF CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS AND RECALCULATING HEADERS AND BERMS USED TO SUPPORT TRUSS SYSTEM; HEADERS AND BERMS ARE SIZED ACCORDING TRUSS LAYOUT AS DRAWN ON PLAN -ALL HEADERS ARE 2-2X10 W/SINGLE TRIMMERS (DOUBLE TRIMMERS W/OPENINGS WIDER THAN 46") UNLESS NOTED DIFFERENT _ENGINEERED BERMS ARE OF A SPECIFIC BRAND/PRODUCT IF A DIFFERENT GRAND/ PRODUCT IS SUBSTITUTED SUPPLIER MUST VERIFY BEAM SIZING -LATERAL BRACE ALL OUTSIDE CORNERS OF EXTERIOR WALLS W/ 3/4"COX PLY (OR OSB) GLUED & NAILED (S"OC) TO STUDS -POINT LOADS MARKED AS 9 -USE NARROW WALL GRACING TECHNIQUE (SEE AMERICAN PLYWOOD ASSOCIATION DETAIL) ON OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR WALL FRAMING -RLL DIMENSIONS PRE TO CENTER LINE OF FRAMING /FACE OF SHEETROCKONTERIOR) OR FACE OF SHTHG(EXTER IORI - LOCATION OF ALL GIROIR TRUSSES ARE BASED ON A 2 PLY GIRDER TRUSS; IF PLYS ARE GREATER OR LESS ADJUST DIMENSIONS ACCORDINGLY -INSTALL RADON MITIGATION SYSTEM AS REQUIRED BY CODE; RUN EXHAUST PIPE THROUGH CLST WALL AS SHOWN -ALL NON-HATCHED WALLS ARE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION -RLL HATCHED WALLS ARE NEW CONSTRUCTION -ALL DASHED WALLS ARE TO 4E REMOVED -8-1 118"MAIN LEVEL WALL HEIGHT -TOP PLATE OF HO E, GARAGE TO BE AT THE SAME LEVEL JOB SITE: DRAWN BY: KREBS DRAFTING & INC. 4675 FATIMA PLACE 1291 DIAMOND CT SHAKOPEE, MIN 66379 SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 952-446-5787 BUSIFAX Exhibit C PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN First floor Tuesday, October 4, 2011 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 952 - 960 -7900 Subject: Variance Application for 4675 Fatima Place, Shorewood, MN 55331 Setback Variance for covered porch (front yard) DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED VARIANCE Per Section 1201.05 of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance, we are requesting a variance (see VR1) to continue the roofline at the same depth as the approved front porch roofline depth (7' 6'}, extending from the front door allowed roof to the 'Tower' wall, to include 2 posts for support. Our current City Approved Permit Plan has a 3' 6" deep eyebrow roof across this 11' section. We also are requesting that the front concrete walkway be approved to extend along the wall of the house from the front door to the `Tower' wall under the roofline at a total depth of 5' 6" from the house, 1' 6" of walkway which is inside our build line and then 4' of walkway into the setback, at house - interior - floor - elevation (see VR2). The current City Approved Permit Plan only allows for a 3' x 3' stoop at the front door, then a step down, and then a 4' wide sidewalk on grade to the driveway. See #3 FVPP - Front View Per Permit See #4 FV Proposed - Front View Proposed PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES 1. SAFETY. We have lived in the house for 10 years, experiencing ice on the front stoop and steps in the winter due to roof melt with the minimal soffit overhang of the existing house. The current approved permit plan (see CAPP1) for our house allows a 2' overhang of the roof around the front entrance and 2' overhang into the setback. This still allows ice on the 3' x 3' entry steps (see CAPP2) due to roof melting. The extended roofline would direct the roof melt out beyond the area immediately at the front entry and make it safer (see VR1). A 3' x 3' entry also leaves an unsafe gap between the front wall of the house and the step since the front door is 3' wide and centered 2' 9" from the front wall of the house. 2. HANDICAP ACCESS. We have friends who are wheelchair bound. One of the goals of our remodel is to make our home more handicapped accessible for these friends. Extending the roofline over the front sidewalk and bringing the concrete walkway to interior floor height makes our design much more easily accessed by persons in wheelchairs. This increases the safety of the access by lessening the amount of maneuvering of wheelchairs on a 3' x 3' step pad that could be icy. 3. USE OF LAND. This proposed variance request puts the land to better /more practical use in providing a safer, more accessible entrance rather than a small, narrow sliver of ground along the front of the house between the 3' x 3' stoop, step and sidewalk arcing away from the house. 4. AESTHETICS/ PROPERTY VALUE. The proposed design of the roofline and covered sidewalk improves the aesthetic appearance of the house by not leaving a chopped, stand -alone entrance in the middle of that face of the house. The proposed roofline and sidewalk provides a continuous flow to the house design that naturally guides you to the front door. The appeal of the design adds to the overall value of the house. This same covered entry design feature has been incorporated in the last two new home builds on our street, so this design is in keeping with other properties in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Don & Kiki Gloude 4675 Fatima PI {L F1 Shorewood, MN 55331 KEY to sketches: VR1 - Proposed Front Roofline VR2 - Proposed Front concrete Walkway #3 FVPP - Front View Per Permit #4 FV Proposed - Front View Proposed Exhibit D -1 APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER Dated 4 October 2011 j i "_j WALLS co K; R]HEN J V I CL co JST REMOVE 6 OR 7F EXIST LIVII REMOVE WALL CD RAISED BA N 01 ISLAND co x '_ Y RAIL--- RAIL cc c q EXISTING BE LL cr Ln [ F E7 j FCA1620-3WI IFCA23363 Arl' LL =_== E- -2X10 _ STEP 4^—l1" IF CR26 MW—".w ex%.,.p , �HCN G'—G ]/2" — rs- I D a. r4 c) A > 1 11 k: cn (0 0 Fi E 1-1 V E.- 1 S F IN C cn, K I FC -IEN c F o 17-9: 3/8it N N , EHM(l STEE L I' Bf P)SIZ§D BY SUPDLIER !I H_ L it OVE WALL 4- BAR EXISTINGco 0 FLR — 2XIO C-p isf UD x O il OD i 4 N: tQ r- OPT IDNAL, pit s ffF__ : - ING am 1 WA, RAIL L IN I'M z, � t;,." 10 U r it AT- (;� C� L i I 1FgL2@36 /4W PLY 1.7G" CT R L �XJERE Ls, o r, N _T( IDRI STEP EXISTING B ri T H LL F­ U) Lo Q ci m co c J EXISTING -jo _j 0- 2XI0 FLR ,1ST CL 1- ;4- ---- REMOVE i I E 00 EXISTING DR N EXISTING 81 S.S" 2.OE IFCA2050­3W 2 1 3/0 H i Ijj Ld W 37< c W 57< 1- ;4- p i I E 00 ur CN LL N EXISTING 81 S.S" 2.OE IFCA2050­3W 2 1 3/0 H i Ijj 37< � U W 57< N EXISTING 81 S.S" 2.OE IFCA2050­3W 2 1 3/0 H IF CR264G G'-2 IfAcn � m !,I ,, 1 I ,,> 1 1N -,,2XIO F(-R J E )K. I ST LMT ROO _j 1. -1 C " -,, 5 [ t i Ijj � U 1- ;4- p i I E CN LL IF CR264G G'-2 IfAcn � m !,I ,, 1 I ,,> 1 1N -,,2XIO F(-R J E )K. I ST LMT ROO _j 1. -1 C " -,, 5 [ t 11-11 31, I T Li TPMF r1l 4 1 ..... ..... 4- - --------- --- ------------- ----------- - - . . .......... ..... ...... ... iv- FRONT ELEVATION SC9LE 1/'T W-PiRi W � 1 1 111 it l l� I ll j���f�Iji k j __. i � I L..J 04� m ----- ---------- 11-11 31, I T Li TPMF r1l 4 1 ..... ..... 4- - --------- --- ------------- ----------- - - . . .......... ..... ...... ... iv- FRONT ELEVATION SC9LE 1/'T W-PiRi W � 1 1 111 it l l� I ll j���f�Iji k j __. i � I L..J 04� m fi ■ X FRONT ELEVATION I SCALE 1/4"=1'0" tz) t�l FV Propubud Front View Proposed MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission,Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 October 2011 RE: Zoning Code Text Amendment – Dynamic Display Signs 3 FILE NO. Zoning Code (Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 11.) Following are the revisions to previous drafts of the proposed amendments addressing dynamic signs. The original revisions from the 14 September staff report are shown in red type with deletions shown with strikeouts. Revisions suggested in the 28 September staff report are shown in blue type and blue strikeouts. Section 1201.02 Add definition: SIGN – DYNAMIC DISPLAY “. A sign or characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays.” Section 1201.03 Subd. 11. Amend 1201.03 Subd. 11. b.(2)(c) to read: “(c) Any sign which moves, rotates, has any moving parts or gives the illusion of motion, except for time and temperature information and dynamic display signs as Memorandum Re: Zoning Text Amendment – Dynamic Display Signs 27 October 2011 regulated in section e. of this subdivision; Moving message type signs may be permitted as an exception when their messages consist primarily of news, public announcements and the like of a nonadvertising nature;” Add new paragraph e. (existing paragraphs e. and f. change to f. and g. respectively): “e.. Dynamic Display Signs. (1)Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Time and temperature signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed, and become inaccurate without frequent changes. Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character. The City finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public safety. (1) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to allow new technologies in commercial signage that allow messages to be easily updated, while at the same time preventing distraction to motorists and minimizing visual impacts of electronic signage on residential properties. The City finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threat to public safety. (2)Permitted Sign Type and Locations. Dynamic display signs are permitted solely as free-standing signs and only in the C-1, General Commercial and C-2, Commercial Service zoning districts. Dynamic display signs shall be located no closer than 20 feet from a side lot line. The dynamic display portion of a freestanding sign shall be located at the bottom of the sign face. Any portion of a dynamic display sign that consists solely of an alpha-numeric message shall not be counted in the allowable area for the dynamic display sign, provided the alpha-numeric message remains static for no less than four hours at a time. -2- Memorandum Re: Zoning Text Amendment – Dynamic Display Signs 27 October 2011 To the extent that signage is allowed in the residential zoning districts, including the R-C, Residential/Commercial zoning district, dynamic display signs shall be restricted to conditional uses in those districts, and shall be limited to alpha-numeric signs only. Alpha-numeric institutional signs shall be limited to 20 square feet in area and shall be timed to remain static for no less than 90 minutes at a time. (3) Duration of Image. A dynamic display sign’s image, or any portion thereof, may not change more often than once every ten (10) 10 minutes, except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour-and-minute, date, or temperature information and except as provided in (2) above. A display of time, date, or temperature must remain for at least ten (10) 10 minutes before changing to a different display, but the time, date, or temperature information itself may change no more often than once every three (3) 60 seconds. (4) Transition. If a dynamic display sign’s image or any portion thereof changes, the change sequence must instantaneous without any special effects. (5) Prohibition on Video Display. No portion of a dynamic display sign may change any part of its sign face by a method of display characterized by motion or pictorial imagery, or depict action or a special effect to imitate movement, or display pictorials or graphics in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of motion of any kind. (6) Prohibition on Fluctuating or Flashing Illumination. No portion of a dynamic display sign image may fluctuate in light intensity or use intermittent, strobe or moving light, or light that changes in intensity in sudden transitory bursts, streams, zooms, twinkles, sparkles or in any other manner that creates the illusion of movement. (7) Audio. Dynamic display signs shall not be equipped with audio speakers. (8) Malfunctions. Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the sign face in one position if a malfunction occurs. Dynamic display signs must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must immediately turn off the display when notified by the City that it is not complying with the standards of this Subdivision. (9) Brightness. All dynamic display signs shall meet the following brightness standards: (a)No dynamic display sign may exceed a maximum illumination of 5,000 nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter) -3- Memorandum Re: Zoning Text Amendment – Dynamic Display Signs 27 October 2011 between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign’s face at maximum brightness. (b)All dynamic display signs having illumination by means other than natural light must be equipped with a dimmer control or other mechanism that automatically controls the sign’s brightness to comply with the requirements of this Subdivision. (c)No dynamic display sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. (d)The owner or controller of the dynamic display sign must adjust the sign to meet these brightness standards in accordance with the City's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon notice of non-compliance from the City. (e)A written certification from the sign manufacturer that light intensity has been preset to conform to the brightness levels established by code and that the preset level is protected from end user manipulation by password protected software or other method. This would offer the advantage of ensuring that electronic signs at a minimum cannot exceed the standards. (10) Dynamic display signs are allowed only on free standing signs in the permitted districts. Dynamic display signs may occupy no more than 25% percent of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic displays even if not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face. (11) Dynamic display signs shall be located not closer than 100 feet from a residential zoning district and any dynamic display sign located within 500 feet of single- and two-family residential homes must be programmed to freeze the image between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. This draft will be presented at the public hearing on 1 November, after which it will be forwarded to the City Council with any further revisions recommended by the Planning Commission. Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane -4- (_II'1' OF SHOREWOOD 0 all TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 October 2011 RE: Animal Regulations — Third Draft FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 700) Attached is the third draft of an amendment to Shorewood's Municipal Code that would establish rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. Changes from the second draft have been shown in blue lettering and blue strikeouts. Please note that a couple of items remain to be resolved. The standards for the shelter facilities and the required screening have not been completed as of this writing. We are doing additional research to see what kind of space requirements animals other than chickens have. Also, we are checking to see what, if any, requirements the State may have relative to the disposal of dead animals. Cc: Brian Heck Dick Woodruff ®" 1016 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -T-H-I-R-D--D-R-A-F-T- Chapter 704 An Ordinance regulating farm and other animals in the city of Shorewood FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS 704.01 PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations and controls regarding the keeping of animals other than domestic pets such as dogs and cats, within the city limits of the City of Shorewood. 704.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. Subd. 1. “At large” regarding a dog, means being off the property of the person owning, harboring, or keeping the dog and not under restraint. AUTHORIZED CITY PERSONNEL. Subd. 2. means the chief of police The Chief of Police, the health authority, their designees, and other personnel assisting in the enforcement of this chapter. RURAL FARM ANIMAL. Subd. 3. means cattle Cattle, mules, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, ostriches, emus, and including, but not limited to, other animals typically maintained in a farm setting but not in an urban setting. URBAN FARM ANIMAL. Subd. 4. means ducks Ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens, bees, and rabbits. MALTREATED ANIMAL. Subd. 5. means one An animal that has not been given adequate food, water, or proper shelter as specified in section 701.13 from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and with humane care and treatment, or that has been subjected to the conduct prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 343.21. NUISANCE ANIMAL. An animal, conditions caused by an animal, or the improper care and maintenance of an animal that result in running at large, offensive odor, excessive noise or damage to property, so as to disturb the rights of or threaten the safety of a member of the . general public, or interfereswith the ordinary use and enjoyment of their property OWNER. Subd. 6. means a A person owning, keeping, harboring or acting as custodian of a dog or other an animal. All adult occupants of the property where the animal resides or is kept is are considered an owner or owners. PERSON. Subd. 7. means an An individual, firm, partnership, or corporation. PREMISES. Subd. 8. means a A building, structure, shelter, or land where a dog or other an animal is kept or confined. UNDER RESTRAINT. Subd. 9. regarding a dog means being: (a) at heel beside a person having custody of it and obedient to that person's command; (b) An animal being within a private motor vehicle of a person, owning, harboring or keeping the animal; or controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in length. VETERINARY HOSPITAL. Subd. 10. means a A place for the treatment, hospitalization, surgery, care and boarding of animals and birds, under the direction of one or more licensed veterinarians. WILD ANIMAL. Subd. 11. means any Any of the following: a.Front-fanged venomous snakes, including the viperidae and elapidae families of snakes, such as rattlesnakes and cobras; b. Snakes over 8 feet in length; c. Reptiles that have the physical ability as an adult to cause substantial bodily injury as defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a, to humans and/or domestic animals, such as python snakes and crocodilians; d. Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies, except domestic animals such as cows; e. Mammals that as a breed are considered wild by nature because of breeding, history, character, habit, or disposition; and f. Mammals that have at least 25 percent of their heritage from mammals specified in subparagraph e, above. g. Wild animal” specifically includes Specifically, such animals as a wolf, fox, skunk, raccoon, mink, bobcat, deer, and monkey, but does not include not including a fish, bird, ferret, hamster, or gerbil. 704.03 ENFORCEMENT. The Chief of Police or designees will enforce the provisions of this chapter, with the assistance of other personnel when appropriate. 2 704.04 RIGHT OF ENTRY. Authorized City personnel have the right to enter upon a premises at reasonable times for the purpose of discharging their duties imposed by this chapter when there is reasonable belief that a violation of this chapter has been committed. 704.05 IMPOUNDING OF ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Seizure and impoundment. Authorized city personnel may seize and impound an animal found to be in violation of this chapter. These personnel may enter onto private property to seize and impound animals when: a.They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the animal's health, safety or welfare; b. They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the health and safety of human beings or other animals as a result of the animal's continued presence on the property; or c. They have reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred or is occurring and that seizure is necessary to prevent further violation, but only after a reasonable effort has been made to contact an occupant of the property. Subd. 2. Interference. A person must not interfere with authorized city personnel impounding an animal, nor refuse to surrender an animal to these personnel. Subd. 3. Cost of impoundment. The animal owner is responsible for costs for the impounding and housing of an impounded animal. 704.06 HEALTH AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. Subd. 1. All animals - animal health standards. Health standards. The owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the following standards. a.An animal kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure must be provided with adequate shelter and bedding to protect it from the sun, rain, snow, and temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. b. The shelter must include a moisture proof and windproof structure of suitable size to allow the animal to stand in an upright position and to lie down stretched out so that no part of its body need touch the sides of the structure. The structure must be made of durable material sufficient to allow retention of body heat with a solid floor raised at least two inches from the ground and an entrance covered by a flexible windproof material or self-closing swinging door. The structure must be provided with sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings, blankets or the equivalent to provide insulation and protection against 3 cold and dampness and to promote retention of body heat. The structure must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. c. In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs a and b, an animal may be provided with access to a barn with a sufficient quantity of loose hay or bedding and protection against cold and dampness. d. If an animal is confined by a chain, the chain must be so attached that it cannot become entangled with the chains of other animals or other objects. A chain must be of a size adequate to restrain the animal involved and must be attached to the animal by means of a well fitted collar. The collar must be large enough to allow free breathing but small enough to avoid being easily pulled over the animal's head. A chain must be at least three times the length of the animal as measured from the tip of his nose to the base of his tail. e. A female dog in season must be confined indoors or in a secure enclosure so that she will not be in contact, except for intentional breeding purposes, with another dog or create a nuisance by attracting other animals who engage in continued barking, yelping or howling. fe. An animal must be provided with sufficient food and water to meet adequate necessary nutritional requirements. Subd. 2. All animals - maintenance standards. Maintenance standards. An owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the standards below. Before commencing an action to enforce compliance with these standards, enforcement personnel must give an owner notice (how much?) of a violation and a reasonable opportunity to comply. An action to enforce the provisions of this chapter shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 104 of this Code. a.An owner must maintain an animal and the area where it is kept so that no odor that offends the senses of a reasonable person is detected, for more than one day, off the property where the animal is kept. b. An owner must maintain the property where the animal is kept so that there is no erosion, and no drainage of water contaminated by the animal, onto adjacent properties or into public waters or wetlands. c. The An owner must manage the feces and other bodily wastes from the animal in a timely and sanitary manner that prevents health risks and prevents odors that are prohibited under paragraph (a) above. d. All feed kept for animals shall be stored in animal-proof, galvanized containers. 4 Subd. 3. Commercial kennels/veterinary hospitals Veterinary clinic with indoor overnight care and indoor kennels. In addition to the standards established under paragraph Subd. 1. above, commercial kennels and veterinary hospitals veterinary clinics with indoor care and indoor kennels, where allowed by zoning, must comply with the following standards. Minnesota Rules Chapter 9100, as may be amended. a. Housing facilities must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. Indoor housing facilities must be adequately ventilated and have ample light, either natural or artificial. b. An enclosure must be of sufficient size to allow each animal to turn around fully and to stand, sit and lie in a comfortable normal position. The floors of the enclosure must be constructed so as to prevent injury to the animal's legs and feet. c. The temperature for indoor housing facilities must not be allowed to fall below 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs animals not accustomed to lower temperatures. d. Disposal facilities must be provided to minimize vermin, infestation, odors and disease hazards. e. Adequate storage and refrigeration must be provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. f. The premises, cages, enclosures and housing facilities must be clean and disinfected as often as is necessary to maintain clean and sanitary conditions at all times. g. Animals must be fed at least once a day with clean, wholesome food, sufficient to meet the normal nutritional requirements for the animal's age, size and condition. h. Clean potable water must be made available to all animals at least twice daily for periods of not less than one hour. i. Feeding and water receptacles must be kept clean and sanitary at all times. j. Animals housed in the same primary enclosure must be maintained in compatible groups. Non-adult animals must not be housed in the same primary enclosure with adult animals other than their mothers. k. An animal exhibiting a vicious disposition must be housed separately. l. Females in season must not be confined in the same enclosure with males except for breeding purposes. Animals used for breeding must be of compatible size and only one male and one female may be mated at one time in a single enclosure. 5 m. Animals affected with clinical evidence of infections, contagious or communicable disease must be separated from other animals in a manner to minimize the chance of further infection. An effective program for the control of insects, ecto-parasites and other pests must be established and maintained 704.07 WILD ANIMALS. Subd. 1. A person must not keep, own, harbor, or otherwise possess a wild animal within the city, except as provided in paragraph Subd. 2. below. a. front-fanged venomous snakes, including the viperdae and elapidae families of snakes, such as rattlesnakes and cobras; b. snakes over 8 feet in length; c. reptiles that have the physical ability as an adult to cause substantial bodily injury as defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a, to humans and/or domestic animals, such as python snakes and crocodilians; d. animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies. e. mammals that as a breed are considered wild by nature because of breeding, history, character, habit, or disposition; and f. mammals that have at least 25 percent of their heritage from mammals specified in subparagraph 1(e) above. g. Wild animal specifically includes such animals as a wolf, fox, skunk, raccoon, mink, bobcat, deer, and monkey, but does not include a fish, bird, ferret, hamster, or gerbil. Subd. 2. Wild animals allowed. Wild animals may be brought into the city for the purpose of entertainment, education, or display only by the following: a. A zoo operated by a governmental agency or a tax-exempt, non-profit corporation; b. The department of natural resources; c. Other similar public educational or charitable organization; d. A circus; or e. A City-licensed pet shop. An organization listed above may bring a wild animal or animals into the city under this paragraph subdivision only if the organization can and does comply with 6 the standards contained in paragraph Subd. 3. below. No organization covered by this paragraph subdivision may have wild animals within the city on more than 7 days in a consecutive 12-month period, except that an organization listed above that has a wild animal within the city on the effective date of this section may continue to keep that animal as long as it lives if the organization obtains a permit from the City and complies with the standards specified in paragraph Subd. 3. below. Subd. 3. An organization that has a wild animal must comply with the following standards at all times that it possesses a wild animal within the city. a. A non-governmental organization must have liability insurance to cover potential personal injury or property damage caused by the animal(s), in an amount of at least $300,000 per person per occurrence. b. The animal(s) must be kept in a locked cage or other secure enclosure at all times when the public is allowed to be near them. c. The cage or enclosure must be constructed of sufficient materials so that a person, including a child, cannot put a finger, hand, or another portion of the body into the cage or enclosure so that the animal(s) could touch it. Alternatively, structural barriers may be used to keep the public away from the cage or enclosure. d. Only personnel with adequate training or experience in handling wild animals may have contact with the animal(s) while in the city. e. The animal(s) must be transported to the display location in the city in a secure enclosure sufficient to prohibit potential contact with humans or other animals, except the personnel identified under subparagraph (d) above. f. No sale of a wild animal(s) may occur, nor may orders for the sale of wild animals be taken. g. The display location must be inspected by authorized City personnel before the wild animal(s) may be brought into the city. h. Authorized City personnel must be allowed to periodically inspect the display location during reasonable hours while the animal(s) is/are in the city. i.If a wild animal bites a person, the animal must be forfeited immediately to authorized City personnel for rabies testing. 704.08 FORFEITURE OF ANIMAL RIGHTS. Subd. 1. Forfeiture of rights. The ownership rights of a person owning the following types of animals may be forfeited to the City pursuant to the procedure in this section: 7 a. A public nuisance animal; (define) b. A wild animal; and c. A maltreated animal. In addition, the ownership rights of with respect to other animals owned by the same owner may be forfeited if he/she has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to properly care for or control the such animals in order to prevent it any of them from becoming a public nuisance animal or a maltreated animal. Subd. 2. Notice. Authorized City personnel must notify the owner or apparent owner of the animal sought to be forfeited that the city intends to forfeit his/her ownership rights. The notice must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The notice must be in writing and state the reasons why forfeiture is sought, including a summary of applicable incidents. The notice must state that the owner has a right, within 10 days after receiving the notice, to request a hearing before a Hearing Officer appointed under City Code section XXX Chapter 104. within 10 days after receiving the notice. The request for a hearing must be in writing and must state the reason or reasons for the request. A failure to request the hearing will constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the notice, and the animal will be deemed forfeited to the City. Subd. 3. Findings of fact. If the owner requests a hearing, the hearing will be held within 15 days after the city receives the appeal. The hearing will be held in accordance with City Code section XXX Chapter 104. The Hearing Officer must make written findings of fact and reach a conclusion whether the allegations are true and whether the animal will be forfeited to the City. The findings and conclusions must be made within 10 working days after the hearing and must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final but may be appealed by a writ of certiorari to the District Court. Subd. 4. Animal confinement. After receiving the forfeiture notice and during the forfeiture proceedings, the owner must keep the subject animal confined within his/her home or within a secure covered enclosure. If the owner fails to do so, or if there is an immediate threat to public health or safety or to the animal's health or safety, authorized City personnel may immediately impound the animal and keep it at the impound facility at the owner’s expense until a forfeiture determination has been made. Subd. 5. Forfeiture. If the animal is deemed or ordered forfeited, the owner must immediately give the animal to authorized City personnel, and a failure or refusal to do so is a misdemeanor. Authorized City personnel may use reasonable force and go onto private property to take the animal into custody. 8 Subd. 6. Disposition of forfeited animal. Authorized City personnel will determine on a case by case basis whether forfeited animals are destroyed or given to new owners who will adequately care for and control the animal. 704.09 FARM ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Rural farm animals. Unless otherwise provided for, a person shall not keep, own, harbor, or otherwise possess a rural farm animal within the city. Subd. 2. Urban farm animals. A person may own, keep, harbor, or otherwise possess urban farm animals within the city in accordance with the provisions of this section. a.An urban farm animal must not be kept or maintained on the front yard may only be kept in the buildable area of the rear yard of the property, as defined by the Zoning ordinance Code. b. An urban farm animal that is kept outside must be provided a shelter structure of appropriate size, that is accessible to the animal at all times. The shelter structure may not be located closer to the boundary line of adjacent occupied property than it is to the principal structure on the animal owner's property, but in any event not (Rewrite less than 10 feet away from the boundary line of the adjacent property. to address location, size standards and screening.) c. The urban farm animal must be contained on the property by the use of a fence or other appropriate containment device or structure. d. Roosters are not allowed. e. An urban farm animal must not be kept on residentially-zoned property if it is being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially-zoned property. f. The ground or floor of the area where an urban farm animal is kept must be covered with vegetation, concrete, or other surface approved by the Shorewood Planning Department, so that it can be, and is, sufficiently maintained to adequately dissipate offensive odors, in compliance with section 704.06, Subd. 2. a. and c. of this chapter. g. The number of chickens, ducks, geese, turkey, guinea hens, or rabbits shall not exceed four (4). h. The number of bee hives shall not exceed four (4). Permit issuance; fees. i. (1) No urban farm animal may be kept in the City of Shorewood until a permit to do so has been approved by the Zoning Administrator and issued by the 9 office of the Building Official. No permit shall be granted until the necessary fee has been paid and until the Building Official or staff representative has made an inspection of the property and has ascertained that the premises comply with all requirements of this chapter. Detailed plans and specifications, accurate and drawn to scale, must be submitted with the application including, but not limited to the following: (a) Site plan showing the location and setbacks of existing and proposed buildings, fences and structures on the subject property. (b) Architectural plans showing floor plans, building elevations and dimensions. (c) Landscaping plan showing how the shelter structure and confinement areas will be screened from adjoining properties. (2) The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of this chapter shall provide with the application the written consent of 75 percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within 150 feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant’s property lines are 150 feet or more from any structure. Where a street separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property, no consent is required from the owners or occupants of property located on the opposite side of the street. Where a property within 150 feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need only obtain the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building. (3) Fees: (a) The permit fee and other fees and charges set forth in this chapter shall be collected by the City before the issuance of any permits and the Building Official, or other persons duly authorized to issue the permit for which the payment of a fee is required under the provisions of this chapter, may not issue a permit until the fees shall have been paid. (c) The City Council shall, from time to time, establish a fee schedule by ordinance. 704.10 PENALTY. [I believe we should reference the administrative penalty for violations of this chapter] Subject to Chapter 104 – General Penalty and Enforcement. Class A Offense – ($100)? 10 CITY OF SHOREWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 October 2011 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Resident Responses FILE NO. 405 (Sm. Crsg. Redev.) As you know, a public hearing has been scheduled for 15 November to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would incorporate the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study into the Appendix Chapter of the Comp Plan. As of the last Planning Commission meeting we had only received one comment sheet from a resident who attended the open house meeting. Since then, a few more have trickled in. They are attached hereto for your review. One of the items on the agenda for Tuesday night (1 November) will be a discussion of the comments received and what, if any, revisions to the redevelopment study should be made prior to the hearing on the 15th. Any continent sheets that are received after this memo is sent will be forwarded to you by e -mail, with hard copies available at the meeting. Cc: Brian Heck Dick Woodruff 412, %J6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ww Resident its Date. 4 The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council invite your comments and cluestions regarding the future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area. You may submit zn comments at the open house meeting, or take the comment sheet home and return it to City Hall later. We ask that all comment sheets be returned by Monday, 24 October 2011. Vision Statement - py r Name: Address: (optional) www Resident Comments Da te: - " U. � ¢, The Shor�;wood Planning Commission and City Council invite your comments and questions regarding the future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area. You may submit comments at the open hoarse meeting, or take the comment sheet home and return it to City Hail later. We ask that all comment sheets be returned by Monday, 24 October 2011. Vision Statement 2 s porr Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment " te�ij Pedestrian/bicycle circulation/connection tw ., Housing) Use (What is needed in Shorewood ?) F y t U 4 her . f � r/ ' 6 f _ t E Resident Comments I Date: The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council invite your comments and questions regarding the fixture redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area. You may submit comments at the open house meeting, or take the comment sheet home and return it to City Hall later. We ask that all comment sheets be returned by Monday, 24 October 2011. Vision Statement Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment Planning Issues tr � t / � �E ECG C 1' OO .��evu ( n i � � �f -� Ge C� (V `4 `¢� �L.� M1 /� `7 Wl (`� � @ U Ci i�- 4�`��•,4 � � t A -S t Y C!� t � t. ��3`z Pedestrian/bicycle cireidationlcos�mectio tit Ert�, No 0 tt t_ t A-40ael 0, t, � (t � �' Y' - � v`.i ,'t ..,s'i v1.i.`C.�✓t (� P 5 � �� dt�` � o�,:,v`2. Housing /Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood tt `` t ` ( kk r �y "i�, -- ,r j U tre.tL ;j�z".� 'i.? C 1,� r`r "i.v't -' q,R-;, 1 E. (" { ree .Le. r' ! Other - 11v Leylb-,', jo ,-V�-evt-4�d-/h, qa-� C.. � � (fit �` 0 00j, t 'ice G e 1( v Gt 1 t 1 € l c,; Eft S -� �Lj 'p, C h G a1 (G( s q p � 0' L' y' '0 X t �S t ' Vt) 0 LA S t - , �;G �'o'� Gf'� C c (fs (, Name: (optional) Address: P -mail• �t r (t; lr1 cC 't /k �f ?( ( F t.' ,) o c 4., fE?v1 7iL L' E1 /t `t6�tE�tl Thank you for providing your constituents and neighbors with the opportunity to provide feedback on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Vision Statement: The Vision Statement seems relatively well thought out, although a bit "idealistic." It is unlikely that any major mixed use development will be pedestrian /bicycle and neighborhood friendly. A commercial development will increase traffic volume in an area that already is NOT pedestrian /bicycle friendly. The shoulders along Smithtown are too narrow to safely use and although the traffic flow at the intersection of 19 and Smithtown is better controlled, it is still a bad intersection for non - vehicular traffic. Additionally, there is no good route of travel to safely get to the LRT to the north on 19, to the east on 19 or to the west on Smithtown. Keeping any proposed development more in line with the residential characteristics of Shorewood would be critical to its acceptance in the community. We don't need a big box retailer, developed by a national developer who will come in to take what they can in the way of municipal subsidies, make lots of promises, follow through on a few, and then sell it to an investor or group looking for a coupon to clip with no interest in how it contributes to or fits in with the community. It's all about the economics, and nothing more for those groups. In regards to landscaping, unless the City requires the planting of trees with 6" or larger trunks, which won't happen, it is unlikely that the landscaping will soften the impact of a larger development on the neighboring residential properties. As an example, of the twigs that were planted in Gideon Glen, some have not made it and those that have certainly have not grown in a manner that will provide adequate screening in most of our lifetimes, if similar landscaping were to be utilized for the proposed Smithtown Crossing Development it would be an injustice to those of us that call this area our home. Piece Meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment: Overall, a coordinated development makes a lot more sense and, if properly executed, should result in a significantly nicer mix of assets for our community. Study Area west boundary, under no circumstances, should extend any further than 24620 Smithtown Road, if that far. The extension of a mixed use commercial development into a predominantly residential neighborhood has the potential to not only adversely affect the values of our homes, but also the characteristics of what has been our neighborhood for the past 23 years. Is there a reason that the site that the City acquired immediately south of City Hall on Country Club Road was not included in the Study area? It would seem to me that since the City is including virtually all of the other municipally owned property in the Study Area, that it would be prudent to include that site at this time as well. Land uses should focus on low to moderate density housing in the western most portion of the Study Area with considerable open and heavily landscaped space buffering the properties immediately to the west. Any commercial development should occur in and be limited to those areas that are immediately contiguous to County Road 19. Buffering and land use transitions will be critical to support from our neighborhood. Perhaps the bulk of the property located at 24620 Smithtown Road could be used to "buffer" our residential neighborhood from the impact of a larger mixed use development. Significant landscaping throughout the project would soften the impact of this development on our community. Perhaps there would be a way to route a bike /walking path through this property through Gideon Glen to get a safer route of travel to the LRT access point that is just to the North on County Road 19. Similar care should be taken with the property immediately east of the Senior Center as it abuts a residential neighborhood. Gideon Glen, when it was acquired was done so to preserve the natural woodlands. It was promptly clear cut and serves as a drainage pond for the Smithtown Crossing Shopping Center located in Tonka Bay. In short, what was once beautiful woodland is now decimated. It would be nice to preserve whatever natural views of Gideon Glen are left. Quite frankly, I don't see the purpose of including Gideon Glen in the Redevelopment Study unless there is a plan to also allow a portion of this property to be rezoned and developed. Any competent developer will understand that any development should take advantage of the views of what woods are left and that they should plan to drain their property into the holding pond now located there. Vehicular access to and from County Road 19 should be pushed north of the existing intersection with Smithtown to provide for better ingress and egress from the proposed development. Access from the development onto Smithtown should be kept towards the center of the development so as to limit the traffic impact on the neighborhoods immediately to the west. I believe that internal circulation can best be addressed by the City's planning staff once there are real development proposals to consider. As previously stated it would be nice to have a bike /walking path that would provide better and safer access to the LRT to the north on County Road 19. Contaminated Soils should be and are the responsibility of the Landowner and their tenants. The City should proceed with caution when considering the acquisition of any property with contaminated soils. As a tax payer, l would hate to see the City assume any liability for the costs associated with mitigating a contaminated site. Phasing — In reality, the study are really includes only three potential areas of redevelopment: 1) that area at the northwest corner of the intersection of Smithtown and County Road 19; 2) that area lying on the south side of County Road 19 and north of City Hall and Badger Park; 3) that area north of County Road 19 and South of the Public Works Building. In regards to area #3, there will in all probability be only one phase of development as the parcel is not really large enough for a multi phased development. Area #2 could be a phased development; however, it is a relatively small site that would likely be redeveloped as a small retail strip with one or to pads. My guess is that due to the current economic climate and the costs that would be incurred in acquiring the properties in this area that it will likely be well into the future, despite that fact that it probably offers the most retail potential as a site due to its visibility and direct access to County Road 19. This would be a better site for a moderate sized single tenant retail development as it is bordered on the north by retail and municipal uses, on the south by municipal uses, to the east by municipal uses and to the west by the buffer that is currently used by the Country Club. Area #1 is likely to be a phased development consisting one phase of commercial /institutional use in the area immediately adjacent to County Road 19 and a second phase of low to moderate multi - level housing to the west. Likely there will be different developers for each of these phases, and in all probability, these phases will not be developed simultaneously. Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis makes little sense. Future Development of the Minnetonka Country Club — If this is something that is anticipated to occur in the relatively near future, say in the next 3 -10 years, then any redevelopment study should incorporate this property as well, and all residents in Shorewood should be notified, as redevelopment of the Country Club would significantly impact the broader community of Shorewood. Land Use and Zoning of 24250 Smithtown Road This property appears to be a beautiful residential property that has, over time, become surrounded by commercial, retail and municipal uses. It is an island in an otherwise generally commercial district. Rezoning probably makes sense. Long term, a municipal related use probably makes some sense, although it could probably accommodate a moderate to high density multifamily (rental) development or perhaps an institutional type of user, i.e.... Senior Center, VFW, Library, Community Center, Post Office, etc... Pedestrian Connection from Badger Park to the north side of Smithtown Road — Unless there is a connection to the LRT, what is the purpose of such a connection? Drainage — It is assumed that the bulk of the drainage from the northwest portion of the Study Area will flow into the holding pond in Gideon Glen, and then to the north until it turns back to the east and flows into Lake Minnetonka. I am not as familiar with the drainage flows for the other portions for the Study Area. iii lii I HERB 10 V 11 01 1 ill 1111 ill Housing/Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood ?) If this area is to be redeveloped, a comprehensive plan should result in a better overall development for our community than a parcel by parcel redevelopment. What we don't need is a box retail development; there is a vacant one nearby in Navarre at an intersection with higher traffic counts than those at County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. At the present time, we don't need a lot of strip retail development either. Some senior housing might be nice to add to our community. Service oriented businesses, i.e.... restaurants might be nice. Local ownership /Local Developers would be a big plus. Someone who will take some pride in what they develop because they live here (in the Twin Cities) would be a huge plus. There are plenty of qualified and capable local developers and investors to make something of this scale happen when the economics support it. Other: Potential Height of Potential Developments. Personally, I don't see a big difference between 40' and 45'in height. The most important consideration should be how the project fits into our community and that it is generally architecturally pleasing. Tax Increment Financing: While TIF is a popular tool employed by many municipalities and developers, personally, I believe that unless a developer can put together a development that stands on its own economically, that it shouldn't be built. Why does everything need to be subsidized by us the tax payer? Acquisition of Land by the City. Is the City prepared to utilize its power of eminent domain, if necessary to make this redevelopment happen? Is the acquisition of these properties the best use of the City's limited financial resources? How will the City offset the lost tax revenue from parcels it acquires if it ends up holding them for 3, 5, 10 or 15 years? As previously stated contaminated soils are the responsibility of the current (and former) Landowner's. The City should not get involved in assuming any liability associated with mitigation of contaminated soils. Although the 2" d Draft of the Redevelopment Study appears to suggest that the broader public /community has been involved in the process of developing this study, it was not until September 23` that the City notified area residents of the proposed redevelopment. There have been no meetings with affected neighborhoods, public or otherwise, with the exception of the informal open house meeting that was held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011. It should be noted that several of the City Council Members or Planning Commission Members did not attend this meeting. The 2nd Draft of the Redevelopment Study references "The County Road 19 Corridor Study, adopted in 2003," but attendees at the open house were not, to the best of my knowledge, provided with this document.