Loading...
12-6-11 Plan Comm Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2011 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE HASEK (Open) ______ HUTCHINS (Dec) ______ CHARBONNET (Open) ______ GARELICK (Open) ______ DAVIS (Open) ______ ARNST (Nov) ______ GENG (Open) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 15, 2011  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS Applicant: Robert and Joan Bauman Location: 26640 Smithtown Road 2. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY (continued from 15 November 2011) 3. GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES DISCUSSION 4. REVISED ANIMAL REGULATIONS ORDINANCE 5. REVIEW DRAFT MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSE ORDINANCE 6. DISCUSS LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING 7. DISCUSS CELLULAR ANTENNAE ON WATER TOWERS 8. DISCUSS WORK PROGRAM FOR 2012 9. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 6 December 2011 Page 2 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 13. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  14. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 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, Davis, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Councilmember Charbonnet APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for November 15, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  November 1, 2011 Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPRHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a December 12, 2011, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained for the last two years the Planning Commission has been working on the project known as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study). The study area encompasses the land adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. The City considers the area to be somewhat of a northern gateway into the City of Shorewood. A great deal of time and money were invested to enhance the area. The City developed somewhat of a “civic campus” including the newly renovated City Hall, the Southshore Community Center, the Public Works facility, the South Lake public safety facility (police and fire) and Badger Park,. The intersection was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. As part of that whole thing the City acquired in conjunction with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District the Gideon Glen conservation open space property. Nielsen displayed a graphic of the area. He explained what the boundaries of the area are. The commercial area located on the south side of County Road 19. A portion of the land north of County Road 19 and east of the intersection where the Public Works facility and the public safety facility as well as a residential property are located. A lot of the Study focuses on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, primarily the commercial area. The commercial properties in the area are characterized as CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 2 of 9 disjointed. The buildings are low value and under utilized, and many of them do not comply with the City’s current zoning standards. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. Nielsen explained the study area contains a total of 23.46 acres not including the Gideon Glen conservation open space property. The northwest quadrant of the intersection contains anywhere from 4.52 to 6.56 acres depending on how far west a project might extend. The southwest quadrant of the intersection contains about 3 to 4 acres that could be redeveloped. The residential parcel located on the north side of County Road 19 could potentially be subject to redevelopment. Nielsen then explained one of the first things the Planning Commission did was identify planning issues associated with the study area, noting that he will focus on the northwest quadrant. He reviewed the issues that have been identified to date. They are: Study area west boundary – it was decided that this edge of the study area could remain  somewhat flexible in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of the single family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area; Land uses – considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the study area;  Buffering and land use transitions;  Taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and  within Gideon Glen; Vehicular access to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road;  Internal circulation – vehicular and pedestrian;  Possibility of contaminated soils;  Phasing the redevelopment;  Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis;  Future development of the golf course property even though it is not located in the study area;  Land use and zoning of the residential property located at 24250 Smithtown Road;  Pedestrian connection from Badger Park to the north side of Smithtown Road; and,  Drainage.  The next thing the Commission did was write a vision statement that creates a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the area in the next 10 – 15 years. The vision statement is a positive expression of what the City wants rather than a list of what the City does not want to see. He displayed a graphic of the desired concept for the area which shows a unified, coordinated development of both quadrants of the intersection with limited access points off of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. The worst case scenario would be to let the parcels be developed individually with each having its own parking lot and pond. A unified, coordinated development would have a more efficient drainage system and joint parking that could be landscaped. After that, the Planning Commission met with the City Council in May of 2010. Later that month the vision statement and concepts were presented to the property owners. About one half of the property owners turned out for that meeting. There was consensus among them that a unified, coordinated development concept was better than developing the lots on an individual basis. During the summer of 2010 the Commission held a developer forum. It invited in a panel of developers that were experienced in redevelopment to weigh in on the potential for redeveloping. The developers were upbeat about the redevelopment of the area. They indicated it would happen over a period of time. They offered suggestions for making it a more viable redevelopment project from a developer’s standpoint. After the Planning Commission held the developer forum it went on a mobile tour of development projects in the metropolitan area. The Commission liked some of the projects and not others. The Commission placed a lot of emphasis on architecture and landscaping. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 3 of 9 A plan was then developed. The main points in the plan are as follows. It would be a mixed use development; both residential and commercial. Higher density for the residential component should be considered. The buildings could potentially be higher than what is currently allowed in the C-1 zoning district. All of this is tied to consistency with the City’s vision statement for the area. The more a developer was in sync with the vision statement the more the developer would get density and height incentives. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation, both within the project area and connection to outside of the area, is considered to be extremely important. There is a high emphasis on natural and substantial landscaping requiring low maintenance. The Study does not dictate any certain type of architecture. It does include photographic examples of desired architecture such as pitched rooflines and articulation where there is some depth and relief that can diminish the appearance of height of buildings. Awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses. Parking lot landscaping to both cool them and buffer them is desired. Some sort of common area is also desired. Photographs were shown of what is desired. The last part of the Study includes an implementation section. There are two main components to that. One is the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage the assembly of the parcels. The American Legion owns approximately one half of the land in the northwest quadrant study area. The remaining parcels are individually owned. The second component is the City acquiring land within the redevelopment area when it becomes available on the market. The City recently purchased a residential parcel on the west end of the area. That property, and other parcels when purchased, could be sold to a developer at cost to demonstrate the City’s commitment to the project. It could also provide leverage for the City to have more input on the type, quality and design of the project. The Planning Commission held an open house style neighborhood meeting which was well attended to give the residents an opportunity to comment on the Study. Unfortunately, the City received few comment sheets about the Study back. The comments received were consistent with what was voiced during the open house. There was concern expressed about density and building height. People did like the idea of a unified, coordinated development. The Commission intentionally chose not to include a concept plan in the Study report. It was displayed at the open house. The concept plan was highlighted. Nielsen noted this public hearing was noticed in the newspaper. Individual notices were not sent out to residents in or near the redevelopment area because it is an overall Comprehensive Plan amendment. He stated he now thinks there may be some value in doing that. The public hearing could be continued to the Planning Commission’s December 6, 2011, meeting and those residents could be notified. When residents were notified of the open house a 1,000 foot buffer of the area was used. That could be used again for this public hearing. Commissioner Garelick stated Director Nielsen referenced the potential redevelopment of the golf course property. He asked what the vision is for that area. Nielsen explained this Study report doesn’t address that other than that it is a planning issue. Nielsen then explained a few years ago the City asked the property owner what his plans were for that property. The property owner didn’t have much to say about his future plans. There has not been any formal discussion about the property. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. Director Nielsen noted that during the Planning Commission’s November 1, 2011, meeting the Commission recommended the vision statement be made into a list of guiding principles explaining how the City would prefer the area to be redeveloped. Chair Geng commented it is a matter of formatting. Commissioner Davis stated she thought it would be easier to read. Commissioner Arnst concurred with that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Hasek stated he has mixed thoughts about continuing the public hearing. Commissioner Arnst stated from her vantage point it would indicate transparency to continue the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Davis stated residents will likely be busier in December because of the upcoming holiday season. Director Nielsen noted the December 6, 2011, meeting agenda will have a number of items that need to be wrapped up. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Commission wants to consider having a second meeting in December. th Commissioner Hutchins stated if the public hearing is continued to December 6 he asked when it will be placed on a City Council meeting agenda. Director Nielsen responded that will depend on the outcome of the Commission meeting. Commissioner Hutchins then stated if continuing the public hearing doesn’t create a lot of delay and it creates additional transparency and opportunity for residents to provide feedback he supports continuing it. Chair Geng stated he supports giving the residents another opportunity to comment on the Study report. He then stated he thought it important for the residents to know there is no development plan. He went on to state he thought it would be worthwhile to notify the neighboring property owners and the owners of the properties in the study area of the public hearing. Commissioner Arnst recommended the public hearing notices to the residents clarify that there is no specific site plan. Commissioner Hasek expressed concern that if residents know there isn’t a specific site plan they may not come to the public hearing. He preferred they would come. Director Nielsen stated the residents that would be noticed already know there is no specific site plan, and that would be clarified on the notice. Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission had previously indicated it wanted a set of guiding principles developed and used at the public hearing. Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, continuing the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study to the December 6, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Don and Kiki Gloude Location: 4675 Fatima Place Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. (which was continued from November 1, 2011). This is to consider a front yard setback variance for Don and Kiki Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place. Director Nielsen stated he doesn’t have any thing to add from what he discussed during the November 1, 2011, public hearing. He explained the Planning Commission chose to continue the hearing in order to give the Commissioners an opportunity to go and look at this property and other properties in the neighborhood. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Gloude stated he did not have anything new to say. He noted he had observed that Commissioner Arnst came to the neighborhood. He explained with their proposed plan the only variance being asked for is for the roofline encroachment into the setback area so the front entry way could be protected from rain, snow and ice for safety and handicap access reasons. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. Commissioner Davis expressed her concern about potentially penalizing a property owner from purchasing a house in an area that was developed prior to the current setback requirements being put in place. It isn’t a huge porch; it is a stoop with an overhang. She stated the City should encourage property owners to better their homes and to make them handicap accessible. She then stated she would like the Planning Commission to figure out how to let the applicants make the improvements they are proposing. What they are proposing is very nice. She noted there are many houses in the City that have been built close to a street. She stated she understands the City can’t allow everyone to do anything they want with their property. The applicants are not proposing to build a large porch; they are proposing a porch. Commissioner Hasek explained there 107 lots in that R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. There are approximately 25 lots in that neighborhood that are located close to the roadway. They are either located at the 30-foot setback or partially within the setback area. There are 40 – 50 brand new houses in the area. He doesn’t know if the new houses replaced houses that were razed which had been located at the setback or within the setback area. Hasek then stated if the Planning Commission is going to recommend approving this variance then the Planning Commission should decide if it wants to allow similar requests in all zoning districts. He believes there will be a lot of other property owners in the City who will have similar requests to put a porch on the front of the house. He commented that the move in housing today is to build a porch on the front of a house. He stated in most cases cities are reducing front yard setback requirements from 30 – 35 feet to 15 – 25 feet. Usually ordinances allow porches to be built on the front of a house. Hasek noted he doesn’t have a problem with allowing the porch/stoop to be built. But, he doesn’t believe it should require a variance. He suggested the Planning Commission work on an ordinance amendment over the next few months that would allow this and similar porches to be constructed. He stated the applicants could pour the footings for the posts now. He noted all of the improvements are not scheduled to be completed for about six months. That gives the Commission and Council time to consider an amendment. Commissioner Arnst asked Director Nielsen why the front entry is side-load as opposed to front-load. Nielsen explained it could be front-load. Mr. Gloude stated he and his wife were told it had to be side- load and that is one of the reasons they proceeded they way they did. It would have extended the steps even further toward the street. Director Nielsen stated there was some miscommunication, and he noted that, provided steps are not wider than four feet, they can extend into the setback area. Ms. Gloude wrote down during one of her conversations with a planning representative that the entry needed to be side-load. The side-load allowed them to build the concrete stoop area which to them is a safer entry for handicap access. Arnst clarified they could have a front-load entry. Arnst then asked if the square footage or the roof over it defines a porch. Director Nielsen explained it’s the roof. He then explained the stoop is allowed. Nielsen stated the acceptance of this is probably because it’s a very open feature; it’s a stoop with columns on and a roof over it. If that were an existing structure today the City would allow that, as a nonconforming structure, to be walled in. He stated if the ordinance is amended he suggested it require the structure remain open and that there be limitations on size. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 6 of 9 Arnst stated from her perspective the definition of porch is subjective. She then stated it would be good to have something that works for the applicants because she doesn’t think their request is unreasonable. She wants the City to provide other property owners in similar situations the opportunity to do something similar. She then stated she didn’t think an amendment should apply to a specific district because there are similar properties throughout the City. Maybe it could be property specific. Director Nielsen suggested it be treated similar to the entry that is allowed for older homes. Commissioner Hasek stated that it’s his understanding that a stoop is an uncovered porch. Director Nielsen stated that is correct, clarifying it has to be at ground floor level. Hasek asked what it would be called if someone had a deck and they wanted to install some posts and a roof over it. Nielsen responded that would be called a porch. Hasek stated he is not sure this should apply to only older homes. Hasek then stated maybe open, roofed stoops should be allowed on the front of houses. Chair Geng expressed concern about granting this variance because it could set a precedent for requesting similar variance requests. Variance requests cost a lot of time and money to consider. He stated that given the number of residential properties in the City with houses located close to the street he suggests amending the ordinance to allow for what the applicants are proposing. During the November 1, 2011, public hearing the Planning Commission discussed putting an ordinance amendment discussion on its 2012 work program. Reasonable use can be made of the property without granting a variance. He noted that the house was probably built before the current setback restrictions were in place. He stated granting this variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the Commission take a good hard look at amending the ordinance, but he doesn’t want to prejudge that decision. He stated he doesn’t think all the variance criteria have been met. Hasek moved, Garelick seconded, recommending the front yard setback variance request for Don and Kiki Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place, be denied. Commissioner Davis asked if the Planning Commission is going to deny the variance but encourage the applicants to put in footings for the porch and then consider amending the ordinance. Commissioner Hasek stated the Commission is not encouraging the applicants to put in footings, but they can do so at their own risk. Also, the Commission does have a desire to discuss whether or not it thinks the ordinance should be amended to address this situation across the City in 2012. Chair Geng clarified the only thing the motion does is recommend the request be denied. Council Liaison Woodruff suggested a second motion be considered regarding putting an ordinance amendment discussion on the 2012 work program. Commissioner Garelick stated there has to be continuity and conformity of what is allowed. Motion passed 4/2 with Arnst and Davis dissenting. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, placing an item on the Planning Commission’s 2012 work program and schedule it as early in 2012 as possible to address issues like this as they relate to front yard setback restrictions for residential districts in the City. Without objection from the maker, the seconder amended the motion to say for the first Planning Commission meeting held in January 2012. Chair Geng questioned if the Planning Commission will have the necessary information at that time to make an informed recommendation. Director Nielsen stated there will be draft information to have a discussion with. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 7 of 9 Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:59 P.M. 3. GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES DISCUSSION Director Nielsen stated this item will be discussed during the December 6, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. He noted the GreenStep Cities Program best practices have been on other meeting agendas, but there has never been time to discuss them. He explained Staff assigned responsibility for the best practices to the staff member or Commission it thought should address the best practices. [The meeting packet contains a copy of document prepared by Staff which lists each GreenStep Cities best practices, identifies if the City will pursue it, what action items the City will accomplish for those it pursues, who is responsible for the action items, the estimated completion date and the current status.] The action items the Planning Commission will be responsible for will be included in the Commission’s 2012 work program. Commissioner Hasek asked if the document could have grid lines on it to make it easier to read. He stated the major heading on page 1 stated “5 Building & Lighting Best Practices – must complete BP 1 and at least one more.” He asked what that means. Administrator Heck explained it means there are 5 Building & Lighting best practices (BPs) and the City has to do BP1 and one of the other 4 BPs in that category. Hasek asked that the formatting be consistent throughout the document. Hasek explained that he counted 5 BPs that are required, 6 that have been completed and 7 more that will be done. Administrator Heck explained there are 12 BPs that are required plus the City must identify two more optional BPs it will implement. The number of action items the City has to complete for each BP varies. The report identifies which action items the City will accomplish. Heck noted he downloaded the spreadsheet form off of the GreenStep Cities website. Hasek stated the Private Buildings BP is classified as optional and he asked if it was one of the optional BPs. Heck responded it is at this time. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the Conservation Design BP includes an action item to develop and fund a conservations easement program. It shows it’s been completed by the Planning Commission. He is not aware of anything the City has done in that regard. Director Nielsen explained it should say it was completed by the Land Conservation and Environment Committee. Commissioner Arnst noted it was done in 1998. Woodruff asked if there is funding for that. Nielsen explained there was at that time; it has since been pulled. Woodruff stated from his vantage point he did not think that can be called complete even though it may have once been complete. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Ad Hoc Trail Committee is still in existence. Director Nielsen responded it has not formally been disbanded. Nielsen questioned if there should be a wrap-up meeting of the Committee. Nielsen explained the capital improvements portion of the Trail Plan Implementation Report (the Report) still needs to be done. The Committee could discuss that during the wrap-up meeting. Hasek explained the reason he asked about the Committee is BP 12 Mobility Options action item 1 (promote walking, biking and transit …) and item 2 (launch a safe routes to school program) state they are in process by the Committee. Nielsen noted those could be updated because the Committee has completed that work. Nielsen also noted the Planning Commission, Park Commission and City Council have had the opportunity to comment on the Report. Commissioner Arnst asked what the Planning Commission is supposed to do with this document. Chair Geng asked what the next steps are. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 8 of 9 Director Nielsen reiterated that the action items in the report assigned to the Planning Commission will be added to the Commission’s 2012 work program. The Commission can offer input about whether or not the action items are appropriately assigned. Commissioner Hasek suggested the Planning Commission go through the assignments this evening. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the action items assigned to the Planning Commission to complete are circled in the document. He suggested the Commission consider if there are other action items it would like to have responsibility for completing and if the ones that have already been assigned to the Commission are appropriate. Chair Geng recommended the Planning Commissioners come prepared to make suggestions about action items that should be added or removed from the Commission’s list of responsibilities during its December th 6 meeting. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Arnst stated that yesterday she asked Director Nielsen for a report on the City’s 2011 Deer Management Program. She asked Nielsen to provide a report. Nielsen explained as of the end of the third weekend of the 2011 harvesting effort 27 deer had been harvested. There were 8 harvested the third weekend. Nielsen noted the most that had been harvested other years had been 26 and that included 11 that had been harvested on the golf club property on a special hunt sanctioned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the City. Harvesting will be done at least one more weekend this year. Commissioner Hutchins stated it was his recollection the 2011 aerial deer survey count was about 158. The survey was done this past February. Director Nielsen clarified it was 145. Hutchins asked what the expected population increase is. Nielsen responded he doesn’t know. Nielsen explained the 2010 survey count revealed 106 deer on the day of the flyover. It was easier to count the deer in 2011 because of the exceptional snow cover. Chair Geng asked if there is a particular reason a hunt was not conducted on the golf course this year. Director Nielsen stated the property owner did not apply this year. Nielsen explained the property owner did not apply for harvesting after the effort was suspended one year. Director Nielsen noted the City has received one complaint about feeding of deer. It’s being investigated. Commissioner Arnst stated there are trail stubs between March Point and the Minnewashta Elementary School, and off of Grant Lorenz and Arbor Creek. She asked if they are City-owned trails. Director Nielsen responded they are; they were put in when those neighborhoods were developed. Arnst asked if they are on the Trail Map. Nielsen responded they are. Nielsen stated he has been told that the School has fenced part of the trail off and he needs to go and confirm that. Arnst stated she was on that trail today and it is open. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 9 of 9 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is an after-the-fact conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards slated for the December 6, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. There will be an informative item about cell tower antenna capacity. The top of the South East Water Tower is filled to capacity. The revised animal ordinance will be on the agenda. There will be discussion about senior housing. There is continuation of the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. There will be continued discussion of the GreenStep Cities best practices. The topic of message therapy licensing will be back on the agenda. Nielsen noted the agenda will be very full. Commissioner Arnst stated the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC) has a luncheon program this coming Thursday called Communities for Life and it’s about 50-plus housing. She thought it sounded very interesting. She has the invitation at home and she will forward it to Director Nielsen for distribution to the Commission. 8. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 14, 2011, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC No report was given. • Other Commissioner Garelick noted an article was published in the Star Tribune Newspaper about fees municipalities charge. 9. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 2011, at 8:26 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 ® (952) 960 -7900 FAX (852) 474 -0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us a cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 November 2011 RE: Bauman, Robert and Joan — C.U.P. for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards (After the Fact) FILE NO. 405(11.13) BACKGROUND Joan and Richard Bauman own the property at 26640 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). In August Mr. Bauman received a permit to bring in 100 cubic yards of fill to level off portions of the rear yard of the property. Due to some miscommunication between the applicant and the people from whom he was getting the fill (the City of Chanhassen), substantially more material (approximately 900 cubic yards) was brought in than what was authorized. The Baumans explain what happened in their request letter — Exhibit B. As a consequence, the Baumans were advised that they either had to remove the unauthorized material or apply for an (after the fact) conditional use permit. The applicants were required to submit a grading plan showing the contours of the property once the fill has been graded out. Exhibit C is an as -built survey of the work that has been done. As can be seen, the property continues to slope and drain to the north. The most significant feature of the grading plan is the large berm that abuts Marsh Pointe Drive on the east side of the site. The remainder of the material has been used to level off the property. The subject property is zoned R -IA, Single- Family Residential and contains 38,889 square feet of area. The land is bounded on its north by a wetland. None of the fill material has extended into the wetland. ®1, f . J* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Bauman C.U.P. 29 November 2011 The C.U.P. process for fill /grading projects serves several purposes: 1) heightened scrutiny on drainage issues; 2) control over traffic patterns for trucks hauling fill; and 3) advising local residents of what can be amount to a dramatic change in terrain. Obviously, two of these have been somewhat subverted by the unauthorized work that was done. What remains is to make sure that adjoining land has not been adversely affected by the project. Staff has inspected the property and found that site drainage does not affect adjoining property. The land continues to drain north to a small wetland area. Although silt fence has been installed, the City Engineer advises that it needs to either be trenched in, or anchored in order to prevent sediment bypass. This should be done before next spring. The applicants mention that lack of rain has necessitated hand watering the seed they have planted. In one sense, from an erosion perspective, they have likely been fortunate. The Engineer also recommends over - seeding the disturbed areas early next spring. Finally, additional erosion control (silt fence, hay bales or straw biologs) should be placed behind the curb along Marsh Pointe Drive to prevent any erosion into the street until the turf is better established. The Engineer reminds the applicants that they are responsible for any erosion and resulting street cleaning that may be necessary next spring. It appears that the amount of fill placed around the existing trees on the site is somewhat minimal. Depending on how much compaction may have occurred from site grading, the affect on the trees may not be seen for a few years. Finally, staff checked the condition of the pavement and curbing on Marsh Pointe Drive. The City Engineer maintains a record of the street conditions from year to year and there appears to have been no damage done from trucks hauling the material to the site. Subject to the City Engineer's recommendations, including the over - seeding of exposed soil and additional erosion control, staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. Cc: Brian Heck James Landini Larry Brown Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Robert and Joan Bauman -2- 1 -A -4 p IT- -y SO2NMOH 0 ) C�LL H HSWVY N ao IWOo vo Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Bauman — C.U.P. for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards O O M O LL LL N r M E Sv U— O O M O Date October i 11 0 MMMITIM From: Robert and Joan Bauman Re: Conditional Use Permit for property at 26640 Smithtown Road, Shoreview, Mn We are applying for an after the fact Conditional Use Permit for some fill and grading done at the above address. The facts leading up to this after the fact application are as outlined below. We wanted to bring in some fill to fill some holes on the West side of the property and then level the land to make it easier to mow and make it more usable as a recreational area. We also wanted to fill the East side of the property to make it level with the street and eliminate a dangerous drop for mowing. I spoke with Joe Pazandak and also Brad Nielson to find out what permits we needed. I was told we could get a permit for up to 10 truckloads with just a simple fill and grading permit that we could get Exhibit B -1 APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER Dated 21 October 2011 within a few days. If we wanted more than 10 truckloads we would need a Conditional Use Permit which would That process could take up to 3 months. We opted for the fill and grading permit and did in fact receive it. The City of Chanhassen had some fill they wanted to get rid of and said we could have all we wanted but they needed to know that we had the permit from the City of Shorewood before they would bring any fill in. I physically took our permit to the City of Chanhassen public works department and they made a copy for their records. They also wanted to know who I talked to at the City of Shorewood. The next day they started bringing in fill and also brought in a Caterpillar tractor and said we were getting more than 10 loads of fill. I said our permit was for only 10 loads and we needed a Conditional Use Permit for more. I was lead to believe that they had talked with the City of Shorewood and everything was OK. They told me not to worry about it. Because I was dealing with the City of Chanhassen I thought everything was OK. I had no idea how much fill they were bringing in. They scraped back the black dirt with the cat and then put in the fill and then covered the fill with the black dirt. I think they did a wonderful job and was sure we had a win/win situation. The fill is what they dug out when a waterline broke. It was too saturated with water to replace in the repair site so they filled the site with sand and stockpiled the wet dirt to dry it out. Then they were hauling the dried dirt considerably south and paying someone to take it. I now understand why they wanted to dump all they could at our place. I am sure it saved them a considerable amount of money. We have since planted grass although it is slow starting because of the lack of rain. We have been hand watering it. We also have erected a silt fence to control possible run off. The water still drains in the same direction it did before the grading. M He said it looked like we had brought in more than 10 truckloads. I said yes but I thought it was all cleared through you. He said the City of Shorewood did not know about the extra fill and he would have to talk to Brad about it. Brad called me and that is why we are applying for a Conditional Use Permit as per Brad's instructions. We are very pleased with the work the City of Chanhassen did and with our hard work we feel we have turned a neglected eyesore, which we purchased, into a very respectable looking property that anyone connected with the City of Shorewood can be proud of Sincerely Submitted Robert and Joan Bauman `t � V Silt Fence _ °°-x- 954.9 948.1 950.4 SF 950. 950:9 954:2 - -><SF K948.1 .-9 i X93. - X 95E " - X951.3 X954.0 --'' .3 50.4 X950.9 -- X952.5 / .X952.0 X953.0 �� L 95 X951.6 X953. �X958.5 ' - X951.7 ,' X952.3 ' --" - -- X953.3 t; V X952.9 O X954.4 X954.6 � 1 - X954.1 ^ 1 , X954, F' - -- --955 - - - - X955:9 X0.5958 X956.7 X957.7 X957.1 - X957.5' ,X961.2 59 - -- - - - - -- c9 - � ' ❑ `I . 958.5 - X959.6 .._- -- - - -� 962.3, .-960' - - - - X"960.0 X': X-981-0- _ X961.3 9619 X962.7 x _ 9 ,32 - X962.6 960.9 `962.1 X961.5 --- X X963.2 96 2 x -965 - 964.3 964.2 �N 3 _ - _ - - X§65 -0- .__ - - - X/964.9 1964.2 - -- -- _X966.7- X967.4 - - - -_ - 967.167.4 _ ' -- --- " 9` -65.5 - X968.0 .X969_1 X969.7 0. - - - Benmhimark: / ' 969.5 _ Top corner of X 970 ' 4 concrete patio - X971.2 970. - - -- -977.5 -- -� X971.4 971.8 Existing Dwelling Drw. Exhibit C PROPERTY SURVEY Contours after fill Exhibit D- I SITE PHOTOS NIP 4 FRANS -AY - a O a J Is" pop. INC ............. W 7 A Ali Tr Wo 4's PT, h i s q JQ 04 cc U YA r • a K g: KIM E� 1 , ^ `mss G fw ' U t Tl" _ C. L - cep A i4 YA r • a K g: KIM fy ry 3 x a F i { au fl i �F j_ y z i f fr ' 00 oil a� Nw , r t'. not Eli IS ma pas MC x i t t o Y � W Y * q % its MA PQ t '. 4^ 3'z ygR n a g L 6 SSSSS� `e .1 k � � y z�� <: »� �� ���� ƒ �� d \ §� �� «�:<« � � s. � <��: ; / /� \\� \��.as\ � \� \� � \� d \ \ ..�� � / . . < � �) ? \ \ \K\ «: .� / . � � � � \ \� \ \d�� � � � � � � � � � � � � MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES BEST PRACTICES ACTION � assigned !Estimated PTI E ! Best practice the City wil OONS AND PROGRAM RQUIR EME NTS (1/11/2011) i (Action Items the city will iresponsibility for action "completion ipursue ,accomplish item li date Current Status 5 Buildings & Lighting Best Practices - must complete BP 1 and at least — - ------- - one more. 1. Public Buildings !REQUIRED BEST PRACTICE Initial entry �(1) Enter baseline information into the Minnesota B3 database and continue entering Required action Brad Nielsen to start w/ i completed by Brad is in the process of entring monthly energy use data from city-owned buildings. ! assistance from finance.: 11/30 initial information. 1(2) Audit (or when cost-effective, recommission) all city-owned buildings in the bottom third _ TXcel contacted, counicl to take !of the B3 energy performance ranking and implement a majority of energy efficiency Required action !Julie Moore and Joe 'Complete audit action authorizing expenditure opportunities that have a payback under 5 years. Pazandak by 12/31 10/24. Improve ments (3) Complete energy efficiency improvements in at least one city, school or park district Joe Pazandak will work i to begin in building (in addition to buildings addressed in action 2) via retrofit and retro-/re- � i City will complete improvement with contractor's. Brian 12012 and commissioning, with financing at attractive interest rates under MN's PBEEEP program or ! be i i as identified in the audit 9 inningand Bruce will continue until related lease-purchase financing, energy performance contracting, or other cost-justified !in 2012 as funds allow and include Ic000rdinate budget and completed (Work on this item will begin upon program. other improvements as part of CIP CIP (thereafter !completion of energy audit 1 (4) Participate in other state or utility programs that provide rebates or co-funding for energy efficiency improvements to public buildings. (5) Document that the operation, or construction / remodeling, of at least one city-owned building (excluding park buildings) meets or qualifies for a green building standard. (6) Create an internal loan fund for making — public building improvements based on an energy for green building standard. (7) Install in at least one public building A �at least of the following energy efficiency measures: a A distributed energy technology: micro-turbine, fuel cell, reciprocating engine. b. A ground-source, closed loop geothermal system where net greenhouse gases are less than those generated by the system being replaced, lhttp://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetaii.cfm?bpid=l 2. Private Buildings ;This Best practice is optional I City will publicize energy (Ongoing reduction and efficiency !,beginning as !Will consider adding energy 1 1 (1) Create a marketing and outreach program with the local utility and/or the local !information as part of the regular Julie Moore is assigned soon as reduction and efficiency iCommunity Action Program to promote residential energy use reduction and energy efficiency. newsletter and website :this task practicable i in next newsletter i (2) integrate green building information into the building permit pro i(3) Develop a (or modify an existing) truth-in-housing inspection program for homes — be - ing - isold, to include a blower-door test and energy-use rating. 1(4) Document at least one of the following green building practices partnering with an assistance provider such as a utility, EnergySmart, MNTAP or ReTAP as appropriate: a. Building energy improvements in businesses. b. Use o f Energy Star's Po M anger by bus inesses . C. The construction of and /or operation of at least three buildings that meet or qualify - - - - f or a gree building st andard. The city will complete this action (5) Tak action to conserve drinking water resour through at least one t he following: ! city watering - — -- restrictions in place, !City has a watering restriction (need to look at jordinance. Program needs a. Impl ement a robust wate ord inance. ! enforcement by P !Ongoing ;enforce Council adopted conservation b. Implement a conservatio ra te structure. Finan Departmen Ongoing rates for water i 2010 !Planning Department C. Adopt, with modifications as necessary, a model landscaping ordinance to allow for (with Planning Not started - should be part of low wa -use landscapin !Comm ! 1 2/31/2012 ;2012 PC w program I Look for possible Grants and d. Create a rebate or feebate program to promote purchases of WaterSense- and ! discuss with council possible Energy Sta -rated applian i ! Julie, Brian, and Bruce ;12/ 31/2012 ;prog rams (6) Provide a meaningful and significant incentive to private parties (builders, homeowners, businesses, institutions) who renovate to a green building st andard: We w ill not pursue at this time a. B uilding permit fee disco b. Grant, rebate or t ax breaks (e.g., prope tax abatem C. Exp permit review - — d. Green building desi as sistance i e. D ensity bonus � -- - - - -- i -_ -- ' -- (7) Customize a model sustainable building renovation policy and adopt language governing i _commercial reno vation projects that: W e will not pursue at this tim a. Receive city financial suppo and /or ! b_ Require city regulat approval ( use permit, rezoning, PUD status). IO Arrange for on -bill financing, using either utility or property tax bills, to make (home /buildin sust ainability improve easier and mo re affordable. IWe will not pu rsue at this time I http: / /greenstep.pca. state. mn. us /bestPracticesDetai1.cfm ?bpid =2 _ - We will not pursue this Best - -- -- 3. Ne Green Buildings Practice at t time (1) Require by ordinance that all new city -owned buildings and substantial remodels meet or qualify f or a g reen building standard. IWe will not pursue at this time I(2) Work with the local school district to ensure that all new schools are built to a green (building standard. _ !We will not pursue at this time i ,Bean obtained information and !We will look into the possibility of !need to consider discussions with (this item Iplanning commission and how to I (3) Customize a model sustainable building policy and adopt language governing new private (work language into potential development projects that: !, (Brian and Brad Iredevelopment projects. a. Receive ci fin ancial support, and /o b. Require city regulatory approval (conditional use permit, rezoning, PUD). I i (4) Provide a meaningful and significant incentive to private parties (residents, builders, i We will not pursue at this time i I developers) who build to a green building standard: a. Building permit fee discount b. Expedited permit review C. Green building design assistance d Grant, rebate or tax breaks (e.g., property tax abatement) e Density bonus (5) Adopt covenant guidelines for common interest communities addressing issues such as IWe will not pursue at this time �stormwater, native vegetation, growing food, clothes lines and renewable energy. 1 (6) Work with local financial institutions to use energy- efficient mortgages for buildings We will not pursue at this time !seeking a green building certification. http: / /greenste state. mn. us /best Practices Deta i I.cf m ? b id=3 We will pursue this Best 4. Outdoor Lighting & Signals Practice As we look at !We will work to accomplish this replacement action item Mixtures or (1) Require energy efficient, Dark-Sky compliant new or replacement outdoor lighting fixtures �Brian ,consider adding Work on this item has not begun !on city-owned buildings and facilities. 1 and Larry new ones jyet. Require all new street lighting ind traffic signals to be Dark-Sky compliant, energy efficient � (2) lighting technologies. !this may be completed Larry Draft agreements completed. Will (3) Modify any city franchise or other agreement with a utility to facilitate rapid replacement �Will pursue this (Brian review to make sure this action of inefficient street lighting. 12/31/2011l item is included. !We don't operate any traffic lights (4) Synchronize traffic signals so as minimize car idling at intersections yet maintain safe and we will work with state and publicly acceptable vehicle speeds. Icounty on this. Larry and James 1(5) install solar powered lighting in a street, parking lot or park project. We will consider this project IJoe and Larry (6) Work with a utility program to reiamp exterior building lighting for at least 30% of city- �owned buildings with energy efficient, Dark-Sky compliant lighting. 'We will pursue this project !Joe and Larry 1(7) Replace at least 50% of the city's parking lot lighting with Dark-Sky compliant, energy leff icient, automatic dimming lighting technologies. may be completed already Joe and Larry 1(8) Replace at least one-third of the city's traffic signals with energy efficient [ED righting 1 may be completed already !technologies. Larry and James http: / /greenstep.pca. state. mn. us /bestPracticesDetail.cfm ?bpid =4 We will not pursue this Best 5. Building Reuse Practice at this time 1 (1) Develop and adopt an historic preservation ordinance to encourage adaptive reuse, with 'attention to energy and resource conservation, indoor air quality and other green building I I practices. - F( 2) For cities with traditionaf implement the Minnesota Main Street model (for commercial revitalization with attention to green building practices. 1(3) Work with a local school to either add on space, or to repurpose space into non-school uses, with attention to green building practices. (4) Create/modify a green residential remodeling assistance financing program to assist homeowners in adding space to their existing homes while retaining historic architectural elements. (5) Adopt development and design standards that facilitate in ill and redevelopment such as developing strip/large format commercial areas into more livable/walkable neighborhoods and Igathering places. http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetai1.cfm?bpid=5 5 Land Use Best Practices ® must complete BP 6 and one additional BP Required BP 6. Comp Plan (1) Adopt/have an a ted comprehensive plan that is less than ten years old (required for Category A cities) OR, Category B and C cities may simply adopt a land use plan that was Required action Brad and planning icompleted, with continuing ladopted by a regional entity or the county less than ten years ago. icommission icompleted I revisions as necessary 1(2) Demonstrate that regulatory ordinances comply with the comprehensive plan including I but not limited to having the zoning ordinance explicitly reference the comprehensive plan as Required action lBrad and planning (completed, with continuing (the foundational document for decision ,completed making. icommission !revisions as necessary 1(3) Include requirements in comprehensive plans for intergovernmental coordination dealing ;with at least six of the following issues: City will complete this action a. Transportation Brad and Julie b. Watershed impacts !James and Brian C. Land use (Brad and Brian d. Economic development !Brad and Brian e. Housing and foreclosures I Brad and Brian i f. Police Completed !completed ,completed !completed g. Fire Completed ;completed Icompleted Icompleted h. Health Completed ;completed icompleted lcompleted !Sewer completed. Working with Sewer completed !Sewer and Excelsior for more i. Sewer and water !Sewer Completed (Completed I TB interconnection 1(4) include ecological/transportation provisions in the comprehensive plan that explicitly aim to achieve all of the following goals: a. Minimize the fragmentation and development of agricultural, forest, high quality open space lands in and around the city. CorrtpletedPlanning Dept b. For cities adjacent to undeveloped land: establish a growth area with staging criteria that reflects projected population growth and, if applicable, is subject to an orderly : L annexation agreement and planned extension of municipal services. C. Establish policies with numerical targets to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 1(5) Adopt climate protection or energy independence goals and objectives in the !comprehensive plan or in a separate policy document, and link these goals to direct (implementation recommendations. We will not pursue at this time lhttp://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail.gfm?bp*id=6 We will not pursue this Best 7. Higher Density Practice at this time (1) Limit barriers to higher density housing by including in the city zoning ordinance and — j zoning map a zoning district that allows: a. Neighborhood single-family density at six units per acre or greater. b. Multi-family housing at a gross density of at least 15 units per acre adjacent to a commercial zoning district or transit center. , (2) Encourage higher density housing through at least two of the following strategies: a Incorporate a flexible lot size/frontage requirement for infill development. b. Use density and floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses in selected residential zoning districts. C. Tie a regulatory standard to comprehensive plan language defining compact city ex nsion zones that limit low-density development. pa d. Allowing accessory dwelling units by right in selected zoning districts. 1(3) Encourage a higher intensity of commercial land uses through at least one of the following: strategies: a. Include in the city zoning ordinance and zoning map a commercial district with reduced lot sizes and zero-lot-line setbacks, or a FAR minimum between .75 and 1. b. Set targets for the minimum number of employees/acre in different commercial zones. - o - fthe (4) Provide one or more — following incentives for infill projects, or for life-cycle _housin_g_____ i- -- j - - near job or retail centers, or for achieving an average net residential density of seven units per acre: a. Building permit fee discount. I b. Expedited permit review. r I C. Grant or tax breaks. d. Other incentives. 1(5) Modify the city zoning ordinance and zoning map to allow without variance or rezoning in - -— !at least one district, developments that meet the prerequisites for LEED-Neighborhood !De certification. lhttp://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail.cfm?bpid=7 We will consider parts of this 8. Mixed Uses BID (1) Create a main street program or organize a Minnesota Design Team planning charrette. We will work to accomplish this (2) Locate or lease a government facility that has at least two of these attributes: action item a. Adjacent to an existing employment or residential center. this may be completed Brad and city council lBrad on trail plan, Brian and Bruce on trail In process budgets, James and ITrail committee plan completed, !Larry on trail projects, (Comp plan updated. (Julie and Twila on 2012 and Implementation of trail segments b. Designed to facilitate and encourage access by walking and biking. grants beyond beginning in 2012. -i—C. Accessible by existing regular transit service. (this may be completed i (3) Modify a planned unit development - PUD - ordinance to emphasize mixed use I In process !Brad and planning I development or to limit residential PUDs to areas adjacent to commercial development. !commission 2012 (4) Certify a new development as complying with LEED-ND standards, including the mixed-use i credits. 1(5) Create, or m - odify an existing, dow — n — townzoning - district to al low residential and icompatible commercial development, based on the 2009 Minnesota Model Ordinancesfor Sustainable Development. i (6) Create, or modify an existing, district to use form-based zoning standards that de- emphasize use-based standards. (7) Create incentives for vertical mixed-use development in appropriate locations (downtown, commercial districts near colleges or universities, historic commercial districts). http://greenstep.pca. state. mn.us /bestPracticesDetaiI.cfm ?bpid =8 We Will not pursue this Best 9. Highway Development Practice at this time (1) Conduct a visual preference — survey - with community members and establish design goals Ifor highway corridors. — representatives i (2) Participate in regional ec development planning with — from , ,surrounding townships, cities, the county and business interests to: --- - — ------ a. Estimate commercial industrial needs among all jurisdictions. b. Jointly implement recommendations to stage highway commercial development in order to avoid overbuilding and low-density development. i (3) Adopt transportation infrastructure design standards that - accomplish at east one of the following: I — a. Improve the ecologic functions of land adjacent to highway corridors. b. Facilitate clus of commercial highway development. C. Context-sensitive design. __ 1(4) Adopt, with modifications as necessary, at least one of the following model cor — i management and design ordinances: a. Model access management overlay b. Highway commercial District C. Adequate Public Facilities ordinance that stages highway commercial development concurrently with infrastructure expansion. (5) Require decommissioning in development agreements for large format developments !should they remain vacant for several years. http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetaii.cfm?bpid=9 We will - not pursue this Best 10. Conservation Design ! Practice at this time (1) Conduct a Natural Resource inventory and Assessment (NRI and NRA) and incorporate protection of priority natural systems or resources through the subdivision or development iprocess, as described in Minnesota's 2009 Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development. (2) For cities outside or on the fringe of metropolitan areas, conduct a cost of public services study for development outside the city grid and adopt development standards or a Iconcurrency ordinance to ensure staged urban growth that protects natural systems. t lit i w ithin woodland be�stmana �ement --- F_ 1(3) For c iti es wn meropoan areas, i by policy woo� I i 1 1 1 practices into zoning or development review. (4) For cities with undeveloped natural resource areas use, or adopt as policy the use of, a conservation design scorecard as a tool in negotiating development agreements. 1 (5) Develop and fund a conservation easement program, such as a purchase of development rights program in collaboration with a land trust. a htt p: //g re e n ste p. p ca. state. m n. u s/ b e st P ra ct i ce s D eta i 1. cf m ? b p i d 10 4 Transportation Best Practices - city must complete one of the best practices lWe will not pursue this — Best 11. Complete Green Streets Practice at this time '(I) Adopt a complete streets policy that addresses street trees and stormwater, and modify Isteeet standards accordingly. (2) Adopt zoning language for a selected area /project that is substantially equivalent to the LE ED for Neighborhood Develop cr edits fo Walkable Streets or Street Network. (3) Document the installation of trees, and other green stormwater infrastructure, and utili renovations as needed (sewer, water, electric, telecommunications) as part of at least one complete street reconstruction project. (4) Identify and remedy non - complete street segments by, for example, adding a bike r oute /lane or sidewalk. (5) Identify and remedy street -trail gaps (at least one) between city streets and trails /bike trails to better facilitate walki and bik ing. ( 6) Implement traffic calming measures in at least one street redevelopment project. http: / /greenstep.pca. state. mn. us /bestPracticesDetail.cfm ?bpid =ll !We will work on this Best 112. Mobility Options IPractice (1) Promote walking, bikin and trans use by one or more of the following means: a. Produce distribute a map s) and/or signage andjor a web site that shows (by neighborhood if a larger city) key civic /commercial sites, best bike and pedestrian routes, and transit routes and schedules. b. Increase the number of bike facilities, such as racks, bike stations, showers at city offices. C. Add bus infrastructure, such as signage, benches, shelters and real -time arrival data streaming.. d. Increase the number of employers who offer qualified transportation fringe benefits inste o f onl a tax -free parking fringe benefit. e. Launch an Active Living campaign in concert with your local community health board. I(2) Launch a Safe Routes to School program with educational, public health and other !partners 1(3) Prominently identify on the city's web site mobility options for hire transit services; jparatransit /Dial -A -Ride; cab service(s); rental car agency(s). (4) Promote carpooling or ridesharing among community members, city employees, businesses, hig scho and institutions of higher education. I N Launch an eWorkPlace Minnesota campaign, working with business and transportation management organizations, or help bring telemedicine technology to a local health care pro vider. (6) Accomplish at least one of the following transit / mobility sharing projects, working witl iother units of local governments as needed: a. Add /expand transit service. — _ — b. Launch a car sharing or bike sharing busin http: //g reensteP.pca. state. mn. us bestPracticesDetai1.cfm ?bpid =l2 -- -- -- -- - - fife wilI i n o pursue i�t 13. City Fleets Practice at this time i(1) Decrease use of city vehicles by means such as trip bundling, video conferencing, ;carpooling and financial i ncentives for efficient vehicle use. 1(2) Right -size the city fleet with the most fuel - efficient vehicles that are of an optimal size /capacity for their intended functions. 1(3) Document the phase -in of at least three of the following equipment and operational !changes in vehicle contracts, for city or local transit fleets, or for school /park board fleets a. Monthly monitoring and reporting for s taff on fuel usage a nd costs. j b. Training fo more efficient drivi including anti - idling behavior /rules. — C. Maintenance schedules that optimize vehicle life and fuel efficiency. - - -- d. Alternative fuel vehicles. e Charging stations (solar or wind powered)f5rou ig-inh��Kufll vehicles. f. Lower-carbon fuels such as biodiesel above the State - mandated � straiig ht � vegetable of using a life-cycle calculation. 9. More f uel-efficient vehicles. h. Car share vehicles owned by a third party to decrease fleet size. i. Ric �cles. 1(4) Phase in bike, foot or horseback police patrols. -, (5) Document that the local school bus fleet has optim start times, boundaries, vehicles, bus fuels, and driver actions to decrease fuel use. '(6) Participate in Proiect GreenFleet to retrofit or replace diesel engines, or to install auxiliary iWe will work to accomplish this I :power units that reduce truck and bus idling. .action item ! Brad M / Julie http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail.cfm?bpid=13 - pursuethis - R - e - s - t - F__ 14. Demand-Side Travel Planning at this time _ (1) in development standards, right-size parking minimum standards and add parking maximums in pedestrian-friendly or transit served areas. 1(2) _-A For cities with regular transit service, require or provide incentives for the siting of retail (services at transit/density nodes. (3) For cities with regular transit service, require or provide incentives for the siting of higher ! density housing at transit/density nodes. 1(4) Incorporate demand-side transportation strategies into develop adopting, with modifications as necessary, at least one of the following from Minnesota's 2009 IUpdated Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development: a . Travel Demand Management Performance Standard b. Transit-oriented Development Ordinance 1(5) Document that a development project certifies under the LEED for Neighborhood Jae �Iome�nt program and is awarded at least one of the following credits: a. Transportation Demand Management. b. Housing and Jobs Proximity. http: / /greenste state .mn.us /bestPracticesDetaiLcfm ? b pid= 14 9 Environmental Management Best Practices - City must complete best practice #15 and #16 and one additional. 15. Environmental Purchasing Required BP (1) Adopt a policy or administrative practice directing that the city purchase only: This action is required 'Upon All appliances are new and energy a. EnergyStar certified equipment and appliances and lBruce IReplacement !star compliant. Purchasing policy in process of b. Pape containing at least 30% post-consumer recycled content. 'Bruce and Pat 11/30/2011 development. 1(2) Purchase 15% of city energy requirements from renewable energy sources. (3) Establish a local purchasing preference and, working with a local business association, develop a list of locally- produced products and suppliers for common purchases. 1(4) Require A purchase of U.S. EPA Water Sense-certified products for all product categories ;covered by the Water Sense program. 1 (5) Set minimum standards for the percentage of recycled-content material in at least 5 1 W will work to accomplish this iStart now and products typically purchased by the city, such as asphalt and roadbed aggregate. laction item ! Bruce, Larry, James Ion going (6) Require printing services to be purchased from companies certified by Minnesota Great ;Printers or by the Sustainable Green Printing Partnership. 0 We will work to accomplish this zaction item 1 (7) Lower the envi ro n m enta I f ootprint of meeti an eve nts in the city through one or ;more of the following: _Julie a. Adopt a policy for meetings and events hosted by city government. b. Adopt a policy for meetings and events taking place on city property, including parks and libraries. C. Distribute edu materials for use at city-supported events such as National Night Out. 1 (8) Specify the use of state and national green standards/guidelines for at least 3 of the 'following categories of purchasing: a. Electronics, including printers, printer supplies - especially remanufactured cartridges - and printer operation. b . Wood products bio-based products. C. Organic food d. cleaning products e Paints, coatings and adhesives f. Carpets g. Furniture h. Paper products http://gree nste P. Pca.state. m n. us/bestP ra ctices Deta i 1. gf m ? b pid 15 16. Urban Forests Required BP 1 (1) Qualify as a Tree City USA. 1(2) Adopt as policy MN Tree Trusts' Best Practices and use the guidelines — inat – least one development project to achieve an excellent an exemplary rating. 1 (3) Budget tree installation and maintenance to, within 15 years, achieve the following tree !canopy shading for streets, sidewalks and parking lots in the following zoning districts: a. At least 25% for industrial and commercial zoning. b. At least 75% for residential zoning, 1(4) Maximize tree planting along your main downtown street. (5) Adopt at least one of the following ordinances/policies: IWe will work to accomplish this action item a. Adopt a policy of no net loss of specified natural landscapes. Brad and planning 12012 possible commission �work plan item b. Adopt an ordinance/policy relating to protection of trees on parcels affected by city planning /regulatory processes. Possibly completed Brad and planning Icommission C. Adopt landscaping /nuisance ordinances that promote, rather than create barriers for, native vegetation. !!Brad and planning 1 12012 possible commission !work plan item http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetaii.cfm?bpid=16 e wi pie rus best 17. Stormwater I Practice at this time - a D) Complete the Blue Star City stormwater management assessment and achieve minimum !threshold of specific activities detailed in this program. 1(2) Adopt by ordinance one or more of the following: Indicated this is complete - will Each year a. A narrower streets provision that permits construction of 24 -foot roads for public, review as street improvements during road residential access and subco streets (with fewe t han 500 average daily trips), ,are designed I Larry an Jame i d esign process Believe some of this is part of the b. A 1.5 inch rainfall on - site rainwater infiltration design requirement for construction We will work to accomplish this "During project I new Watershed District sites. ;action item ;James desig !re C. A stormwater runoff volume limit to pre - development volumes for the 5 -year, 24- hour rainfall maxim e vent. �(3) Maintain less than 12 impermeable surfaces in the watershed in which the city lies. (4) Create a stormwater utility that uses variable fees to incentivize enhanced stormwater management and funds community stormwater infrastructure and assistance /education i pr 1(5) Adopt and implement guidelines for, or adopt required design standards for at least one of the foll owing stormwater in filtration /reuse techniques: a. Rain gardens. b. Green roofs with or without cisterns, or water /greywater reuse systems. C. Green alleys. d. Green arkin lots p � _ Indicated this is complete - will I (review ordinance and other Review as 1(6) Adopt an ordinance with erosion and sediment control provisions as well as requirements p rojects are ; Coordinate as necessar with the p ro J y (regulations for compliance. for perman stormw t !James (propos IMCWD lhttp://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail.cf _ — __---_ i_- I pursue parts oft is 18. Green infrast best practice - !Trail committee plan completed, j This task is nearly complete Comp plan p Ian u dated. 1(1) Identify g aps (connectivity breaks) in your city's system of parks, trails and open spaces, !Brad, Brian, Larry, parks I Implementation of trail segments and re medy at least one of them. !commission 12/ beginning in 2012. (2) Plan and budget for a network of parks, green spaces, water features and trails in all new j !development areas. (3) Document at least one o the following p erform ance measur a. At least 20% of total city land area in protected green infrastructure (parks and protected natural resour ar and trail b. All residents are within Yz mile of a park or protected green space. (4) Adopt low- impact design standards in parks and trails that infiltrate or retain all 2 inch, 24 (hour stormwater events on site. IN Create park management standards that maximize at least one of the following: a. Low maintenance native landscaping. j b. Or ganic or integrated pest management. C. Sourc of non - pot able wat for irrigation. - - 1(6) Certify at least one golf course in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golfer - �— ! Cou rses. (7) Document that the operation, or construction remodeling, of at least one park building meets or qualifies for a green building standard, with special attention to highlighting and ! educat ar the gre f eatures. (8) Develop a program to involve community members in land restoration and stewardship. http://greensten.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetai I. Lfm? bpjid=18 .We will pursue pa rts 19. Surface Water best practice (1) Assist at least one lake or river association to earn the Star Lake/River designation for !their lake/river. (2) Assist at least one lake or river association to become Star Lake /River -ready by achieving nearly all of the program requirements. 1 (3) Work with other organizations to support citizen education about and involvement with ,actions to attain measurable, publicly announced surface water improvement targets for lakes, , streams and wetlands, adopted by the city council and reported on each year. indicated this action is completed !James and public works IOn-going !Ongoing process �modified. (4) Adopt a shoreland ordinance consistent with MN Dept. of Natural Resources rules as Brad and planning Indicated this action is completed Icommission Icomplete (complete tLtL — � — reenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetaii.cfm?bpid=19 vve Will compieie action item 20. Water and Wastewater Facilities i3 (1) Compare the energy use and performance of your facilities with other peer plants using standardized, free tools. 1(2) Plan and budget for motor maintenance and upgrades so as to assure the most energy efficient, durable and appropriate equipment is available when upgrades or break downs occur. '(3) Establish anon- going budget and program for decreasing inflow and infiltration into Completed ;sewer lines, involving at least gutter, foundation drains and sump pump disconnects. !Jame and pubic works (Ongoing 1 Ongoing process (4) Assess energy and chemicals use at drinking water facilities and implement one-third of I recommendations with q _payback of less than 3 years. 1(5) Require property owners to have their private sanitary sewer lateral pipe inspected before ia property sale or title transfer. :(6) Implement at least one of the following efficiency projects/programs: 1 a. Assist local businesses, institutions and/or residents in pre-treating and lowering volumes and toxicity of sewer inflows. Co-generate electricity and heat from the wastewater treatment plant. c. Reuse water (sell reclaimed water) from a wastewater plant for nonpotable ag- processing, irrigation, cooling or power plant uses. i d. A greywater reuse system in at least one public or private building. lhttp://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail.cfm?�b id�=20 lWe will not pursue this Best 21. Septic Systems Practice at this time (_1F_R_e_port to landowners — suspected non or failing septic systems as part of an !educational, informational and financial assistance and outreach program designed to trigger (voluntary landowner action to improve septic systems. (2) Create a program that follows the five-step process for addressing failing septic systems (developed by the University of Minnesota's Onsite Sewage Treatment Program. 1(3) Clarify/establish one or more responsible management entities for the proper design, !siting, installation, operation, monitoring and maintenance of septic systems. 1(4) Adopt a Subsurface Sewage Treatment System ordinance based on the Association of !Minnesota Counties model ordinance. 'I (5) Create a program to finance septic systems upgrades through, for example, a city revenue I bond, repayable through taxpayers' property taxes. 6 Work with homeowners and businesses in environmentally sensitive areas and areas !where standard septic systems are not the least-cost option to promote innovative waste water s y stems. s. (7) Arrange for assistance to commercial, retail and industrial businesses with water use reduction, pollution prevention and pretreatment prior to discharge to septics. http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetaii.cfm?bpid=21 W e \Wi 1 Fwork o n t h is Is B e st 22. Solid Waste Reduction Practice !(1) Adopt percentage reduction goals for waste and toxicity generated from city operations (including schools, libraries, parks, municipal health care facilities). Accomplish reduction goals in at least three of the following areas: a. Overall waste generation b. Paper use and junk mail c. Pesticide/herbicide use d. Water use/waste water generation 1(2) Adopt and meet aggressive goals for the overall percentage diversion of currently disposed waste from city operations into recycling and organics collection. (3) Document signing of at least one resource management contra with a waste hauler for lone or more of: !Action item completed Julie (complete icomplete a. City government operations. b. Schools, libraries, parks, or municipal health care facilities. C. A commercial or industrial business. (4) Publicize, promote and use the varied businesses collecting and marketing used and repaired consumer goods in the city/county. 1 (5) Arrange for a residential or business institutional organics _collection management ';program (food-to-people, food-to-animals, composting, anaerobic digestion, and backyard We will work to accomplish this !in the process of starting organics composting). action item (Julie and Pat 12/31/2012 1 pilot (6) Organize residential solid waste collection by private and/or public operations to We will work to accomplish this 'Staff will facilitate discussion with accomplish multiple benefits. iaction item (Julie, Brian, and Pat 6/30/20121 council after 1/1/12 !(7) For cities that provide direct or contract waste collection services, offer volume-based !We will work to accomplish this If organized collection is selected I pricing on residential garbage and/or feebates on recycling so that the price differences are !action item ! method, will incorporate this with large enough to increase recycling /composting but not illegal dumping. !Julie, Brian, and Pat 12/31/2012 1(8) Adopt a construction and demolition ordinance for projects over a specified size that - !agreement mandates levels of recycling and reuse for materials and soil/land-clearing debris and is tied to demolition permits. ---------- 1 http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetaii.cfm?bpid=22 We will not pursue this Best 23. Local Air Quality — Practice at this time — follo\A (1) Conduct an education/financial assistance campaign around one oFthe ing wood I burning auto exhaust issues: a. Indoor and outdoor wood burning behavior to ensure that wood burning is only done with seasoned wood and in a manner that doesn't negatively impact neighbors. b. Indoor wood burning techn to result in community members upgrading from inefficient/more polluting fireplaces and wood stoves to natural gas stoves and fireplaces or the most efficient certified wood stoves. C. Smoker cars - older model/high polluting vehicles, to result in repairs spurred by repair vouchers. (2) Regulate outdoor wood burning, using model ordinance language, performance stanclarcls:� i and bans as appropriate, for at least one of the following: a. Recreational burning. b. Outdoor wood boilers. Cornpleted /City'Coancil - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- — - - — - (3) Conduct one or more education /behavior change campaigns on the topics below and document: — — - - -- - a. Decrea vehicle idling in speci local or by specific fleets. - -- - - - - - -- -- - -!- - - -- - - — - - -- b. Increased sales by retail stores of low and no -VOC household products. C. Replacement of gasoline- powered equipment with lower polluting equipment. !(4) Document the participation of at least 3 larger businesses using trucks in at least one of _ follow - -- - - - -- - - - - -- -- a. Clean Air Minnesota's Project GreenFleet. b. U.S. EPA's SmartWay Transport program. j C. Installation of auxiliary power units that reduce tr uck and bus idling. 1(5) Install at least two public charging stations for plug -i hybrid and f ull electric ve hicle s. Ihttp: / /greenstep.pca. state. mn. us /bestPracticesDetaiLcfm ?bpid =28 -_ 5 Economic and Community Development Hest Practices city is required to complete Best Practice 24 and 25 I y Required BP 24. Benchmarks & Communit ((1) Report progress at least annually to community members on implementation of GreenStep I !City best practices, includin energy /car bon benchmarking data if gathered. Req uired ! j (2 ) Organize goa s outcome measures from all city plans -comprehensive, par s, library, housing, stormwater, drinking water, transportation, economic development, energy, sustainability, etc. - and annually report to community members data that show progress toward meeting these goals. 1(3) Engage community members in a public process involving a city council committee or lWe will work to accomplish this (Community survey in of community task force that results in city council adoption of and commitment to measure and process (report on progress t oward sustainability indicators. action item (Brian 12/31/20121 completio (4) Conductor support an energy efficiency or sustainability education and action campaign -- -- fo - a _ - The entire com -- - - L-- C -- — — I b. Homeowners c. Block clubs /neighborhood associations d. Congreg e. Schools an y outh - I(5) Conductor support a community education, visioning and planning initiative using a isu f ramework such as: a. Strong Towns b. Transition initiatives - - - -- - - - - -- C. Eco- municipalities /The Natural Step d. ISO 14001 e. Post C arbon Cities - - f . P ermacul ture � - -- - - - I - — - - g. Natural Capita j - h. Genuine P — i. Healthy communities J. Multi- generation lear http: //g reenstep.pca. state. mn. us /bestPracticesDetaiLcfm ?bpid =23 25. Green Business Development Required ( Identify new and emerging local businesses in the green economy and support these !businesses and green jobs through one or more of the following: a. Coordinated marketing and business assistance. b. Incubator space. C. Streamlined grants, loans or permitting processes. d. Workforce training opportunities with community colleges and job training centers. i (2) connect at least s_businesses with assistance providers, including utilities, who conduct personalized energy, environmental sustainability, and waste audits. (3) Distribute green tourism resources to all tourism and hospitality businesses in the city and facilitate follow-up with at least five businesses to assist them in greening their business. 1(4) Support the creation of a value-added business utilizing local waste products such as !wood from felled trees or reusable deconstruction and landscaping materials. 1(5) Document steps taken to lower the environmental footprint of a brownfield remediation/reclevelopMent project. Use a green business certification program to publicly promote that a targeted number or I percentage of businesses has improved the environmental performance of their company. ](7) Conductor participate in a buy local campaign, working with local organizations and lassistance providers. �(8) Work with the state Small Business Environmental Assistance Program (SBEAP) to help at least 5 businesses to use SBEAP services. http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail.Lfm?bpid=24 26. Renewable Energy !, Practice at this time Adop with modifications as necessary, at least one of the following from Minnesota's 12009 Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development: a. Solar energy standards. b. Model wind energy or d inance. 1 (2) Consistently promote at least one of the following means of increasing renewable Igeneration. i a. A local utility's green power purchasin program for homes and businesses. b. Local, state and federal financial incentives for property owners to install renewable energy systems. 1(3) Create a renewable energy financing program for property owners to install generation capacity. (4) Promote firms that contract with property owners (in groups or individually) to install/finance renewable installations, some at little or no upfront cost. 1 (5) install a public sector renewable energy technology such as solar electric (PV), solar hot water or hot air, micro-hydro or wind. 1(6) Work with private/public partners to create renewable energy generation capacity with lone or more of the following attributes: a. Fueled by flowing water, wind, or biogas. b. Fueled in part or whole by woody biomass, optimized for minimal air and other environmental impacts and for energy efficiency and water conservation. c. Distributing heating/cooling services in a district energy system. cl. Producing combined heat and power. http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail.cfm?br)id=25 We will not pursue this Best 27. Local Food I Practice at this time (1) incorporate working landscapes - agriculture and forestry - into the city by adopting, with modifications as necessary, one or more of the 2009 Minnesota Model Ordinances fo r 'Sustainable Development: a. Agriculture and Forest Protection District b. Local Food Production District C. Performance Standards for Minor and Major Agricultural Retail. I (2) Permit the incorporation of food growing areas/local food access into a residential ; develo p ment. (3) Expand/strengthen or create at least one of the following means of expanding local food access: a A farmer's market. b. A community- supported agriculture (CSA) - arrangement between farmers and community members/employees. C. A community or school garden, orchard or forest. !Completed Larry, Twila complete I Ongoing process d. A ru ral roc�er store. 1(4) Conduct at least one of the following campai to measurably increase: a. Purchase of food with at least one of the following attributes -- local, Minnesota- grown, organic, humanely raised, grown by fairly compensated growers. b. Backyard gardening / chickens. C. Institutional buying of local foods by schools, hospitals/nursing homes, restaurants and hotels, or grocery stores d. Sale of local food in markets and restaurants. http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail.cfm?bpid=26 - We - will not pursue th 28. Business Synergies Practice at this time '!(I) Help at least three businesses register as users of the Minnesota Materials Exchange and !document their exchanges/sales of byproducts with other local/regional businesses. 1(2) Assist at least one business to use waste heat or water dIscharg e from another business. I (3) Require, build or facilitate at least four of the following in a business /industrial project: a. Shared parking/access. b. Shared recreation /childcare facilities. C. A green job training program. d. Green product development, manufacturing or sales. e. Buildings located within walking distance of transit and/or residential zoning. f. Renovated buildings. 9. Buildings designed for reuse. h. Green buildings built to exceed the Minnesota energy code. i. Combined heat and power (CHP) generation capacity. i j. Shared geothermal heating/cooling. k. Low-impact site development. L ---------------- � (4) Use eco-industrial park tools to identify industrial facilities that could achieve economic and environmental benefit by co-locating in the city's industrial park or industrial zone. http: / /greenstep.pca. state. mn. us/ bestPracticesDetaiI.cfm ?bpid =27 From among all the best practices (1 - 28), the "floating BP" requirement: Any TWO additional best practices CITY OF SIIOKGWOOD TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 December 2011 RE: Farm and Other Animals Ordinance — Revisions to Third Draft FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 704) At its 1 November meeting, the Planning Commission considered a third draft to a proposed ordinance regulating farm and other animals (see staff report, dated 27 October 2011). In addition to some minor formatting issues, staff was directed to address the shelter and screening requirements for urban farm animals. Since the third draft of the ordinance already utilizes three different colors of ink, and in order to not reprint the entire document, the proposed revisions are listed below by section. Section 704.06 Subd. 1. is amended to include: 'T. No person shall deposit or cause to be deposited upon any lot or in any street, alley, lake, river or other body of water, sewer or manhole or bury or conceal in any way, a dead animal or part thereof. The owner or other person having charge of an animal at the time of its death shall remove or cause to be removed the dead body of such animal within 24 hours after death to a crematory, sanitary landfill, rendering factory or any other place approved by the Chief of Police or his designee." Section 704.07 Subd. 1. is amended to include the title "Wild animals prohibited." Section 704.07 Subd. 3. is amended to include the title "Standards for keeping of wild animals." Section 704.08 is amended to read "FORFEITURE OF ANIMAL OWNERSHIP RIGHTS" Section 704.09 Subd. 2 b. is amended entirely to read: "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 as provided in section 704.06 Subd. 1. of this chapter. The shelter structure and confinement areas shall be adequately screened to the ®� i���{ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Farm Animals Ordinance — Revisions to Third Draft 1 December 2011 satisfaction of neighboring property owners as provided in section i.(2) of this subdivision. Screening may be achieved by fencing or landscaping, or a combination of both." Section 704.10 is amended to read: "704.10 PENALTY. Violation of this chapter shall be grounds for administrative enforcement pursuant to chapter 104.03 of this code." Please bring the 27 October staff report with you. Staff will have some extra copies at the meeting for those who may have misplaced it. Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane -2- MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission,Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 November 2011 RE: Municipal Code Amendment - Massage Therapy Licensing FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 311) Having been asked by the City Council to review the licensing requirements for massage therapy businesses, the Planning Commission, at its October study session, directed staff to prepare a draft amendment shifting the responsibility for obtaining a license from the individual therapist to the owner of the business. The attached draft amendment is the first draft of such an amendment. As always, using the existing code language, additions to the code are shown in red lettering and deletions are shown with strikeouts. The significant changes proposed are found in the application requirements (Section 311.03 Subd. 1) and in the general conditions (311.05). A new definition for “massage therapy business” is also included. Aside from the license itself, the business owner assumes responsibility for ensuring that therapists meet the code requirements and for maintaining records of therapist qualifications. Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane CITY OF SHOREWOOD MUSH • TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 December 2011 RE: Life -Cycle Housing FILE NO. 405 (Comp Plan — Housing) One of the items that has been on our list of things to do is to review our Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations relative to life -cycle housing, that is the range of housing choices available to residents in this community. It is worth mentioning that there is an enormous amount of information available on housing and finding a starting point for discussion can be somewhat daunting. Two weeks ago I attended a forum (thanks to Commissioner Arnst) sponsored by the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC), the subject of which was "Communities for a Lifetime ". Although the forum was quite short, the discussion and some of the hand -out materials they provided could provide a basis for our discussions. Attachment I provides a brief overview of Communities for a Lifetime. There is a lot more information on their website which is included on the bottom of the page. Communities for a Lifetime was actually incorporated into Minnesota Statutes in 2009, an excerpt of which is included in Attachment II. The highlighted provisions focus on the housing aspect. Attachment III contains the "Baby Boomer Survey" conducted by Transform 2010, a project of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. One of the topics mentioned in the forum was "aging in place ". It was pointed out that many people simply want to remain in their current living situation. Where this becomes unrealistic for some people due to physical or health related reasons, many still want to remain in their community. Shorewood's predominantly single - family residential housing ea f . ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Life -Cycle Housing 1 December 2011 stock provides some range of options for people of various ages. There may be things the City would wish to consider to broaden housing choices. For example, in January the Planning Commission will be studying an ordinance amendment addressing access improvements for older homes. That conversation could and should include a discussion of handicapped accessibility. These types of improvements could go far in keeping older residents in their homes. Another topic for discussion should be accessory apartments. This alternative could address housing needs on both ends of the age spectrum — adult children moving in with parents and vice versa. Shorewood's Zoning Code was amended several years ago to address one aspect of senior housing - independent "cottage" style housing. Our ordinance does little, however, to address the needs of older residents who can no longer live by themselves (assisted living and care facilities). Over the next few months, it is proposed that these topics be explored and, to the extent desirable, be incorporated into our Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. The Planning Commission should identify what background information would be usefiul for decision - making purposes. Staff is already working on census data. An inventory of housing stock will also be presented. Cc: Brian Heck -2- Communities for a Lifetime - What are communities for a lifetime? Page 1 of 1 Enlarge text size: Print Sitemap Cornmunities . a Lifiqtiine Home About Resources Assistance Local Initiatives What are communities for a lifetime? Home » About n VViat are communities for a lifetime? What are Communities for a lifetime are good places to grow up and grow old, and offer physical, social communities for and service features for residents of all ages and abilities. Through collaborative action and a lifetime? strategic planning, community leaders across sectors build places that support health and vitality for residents and the community as a whole. Why build communities for Transform 2010 a joint project of Minnesota's Department of Human Services, Board on Aging a lifetime? and the Department of Health, identified fostering communities for a lifetime as one of five core strategies to prepare Minnesota for a growing aging population. According to Transform 2010, building communities for a lifetime requires leadership and civic investment in four major aspects How are communities for of community. a lifetime built? 1. Assessment and planning Where are communities for Considering the impact of local demographic trends, including the aging of the a lifetime built? population Assessing the physical, social and service assets and needs of the community Who is involved in communities 2. Improvements to physical infrastructure for a lifetime? Applying universal design principles to built environments, such as housing, parks and trails, and city streets When has Minnesota taken Increasing the variety and affordability of housing, including modification of existing important steps? homes and intergenerational living Improving mobility through various forms of transportation, including safe and age - friendly roadways, accessible public transit, and pedestrian and wheelchair - friendly streets 3. Improvements to social infrastructure Increasing paid and non -paid work opportunities for people of all ages and abilities Improving physical and mental health and safety across the population Strengthening neighborhoods, civic organizations, faith communities and other informal social networks Creating opportunities for interaction between generations and among diverse groups 4. Improvements to service infrastructure Ensuring the availability of essential community services, including primary health care, grocery stores, and pharmacies Offering amenities such as parks, cultural opportunities, and a wide array of recreational options Sustaining and developing supportive services that promote resident well being and independence © 2010 Minnesota Board on Aging, Minnesota Department of Human Services For questions and comments about this site contact DHS.lifetime(cr state.mn.us Home Contact Us Site Map Attachment I http://www.mnlifetimecommunities.org/eii/About/What.aspx Subd. IO.Communities for a lifetime. (a) For purposes of this subdivision, "communities for a lifetime" means partnerships of small cities, counties, municipalities, statutory or home rule charter cities, or towns, whose citizens seek to affirmatively extend to persons ages 65 and older the opportunities, supports, and services that will enable them to continue to be contributing, civically engaged residents. (b) The opportunities extended within a reasonable distance to senior residents by communities for a lifetime must include, but not be limited to: (1) the opportunity to contribute time and talents through volunteer community service; (2) the opportunity to participate in the paid workforce, with flexibility of hours and scheduling; (6) the opportunity for community -wide mobility and to access public transportation, including door -to -door assistance and weekend and evening access. (c) Communities for a lifetime must demonstrate the availability of supports and services for senior residents that include, but are not limited to: (1) an array of home and community -based services to support seniors' options to remain in an independent living setting as they age and become more frail; (2) access to contemporary remote medical technology for cost - effective home -based monitoring of medical conditions; (3) access to nutrition programs, including congregate meal and home - delivered meal opportunities; (4) access to a comprehensive caregiver support system for family members and volunteer caregivers, including: (i) technological support for caregivers remaining in the paid workforce to manage caregiver responsibilities effectively; and (ii) respite care that offers temporary substitute care and supervision for frail seniors; Attachment II (5) personal assistance in accessing services and supports, and in seeking financing (7) high- quality nursing care fac'iites a serQr's geographic setting of'choice ;' and (8) the protection offered to vulnerable seniors by a publicly operated adult protective service. (d) Communities for a lifetime must also: (1) establish an ongoing local commission to advise the community for a lifetime on its provision of the opportunities, services, and supports identified in paragraphs (b) and (c); (2) offer training and learning opportunities for businesses, civic groups, fire and police personnel, and others frequently interacting with seniors on appropriate methods of interacting with seniors; and (3) incorporate into its local plan, developed in accordance with sections <a href = "/ statutes ?year= 2009& id = 366.10 #stat.366.10 " >366.10, <a href = "/ statutes ?year= 2009& id = 394.232 #stat.394.232 " >394.232, and <a href =" /statutes ?year= 2009& id = 462.353 #stat.462.353 " >462.353, elements that address the impact of the forecast change in population age structure on land use, housing, public facilities, transportation, capital improvement, and other areas addressed by local plans; provisions addressing the availability of the opportunities, supports, and services identified in paragraphs (b) and (c); and strategies to develop physical infrastructure responsive to the needs of the projected population. -2- for these services and supports; Transform 2010 DATA REPORT —Baby Boomer Survey Themes for Action A bout the S urvey * Redefining work and retirement Members of the baby boom generation (boomers) begin to turn 65 in 2011. Supporting care - givers of The generation is the largest ever born and represents the beginning of a all ages permanent shift in the age of our state's population. To better understand the o Foster communities for implications of this historic demographic shift, Transform 2010, a project of a lifetime Minnesota's Department of Human Services in partnership with the Board on Improving health and Aging and Department of Health, conducted a survey of Minnesota boomers, long-term care those born between 1946 and 1964. rAla��i�i�i €�g use technology e. of As the boomers age, they will face transitions — changes in work /retirement, personal health, housing, and changes in relationships and social roles. This survey addressed these important areas of personal transition to: • Stimulate individual boomers to think and prepare for key transitions • Gather information on boomers needs and preferences to effect system change • Inform the policy agenda for aging at the state level The survey focused on Minnesota boomers' current thoughts about work and housing in particular, and the ways in which they expect to approach these issues in the next 10 years. The survey also sought better understanding of the way in which personal health, finances, and caregiving responsibilities impact Tra nsform 2010 boomers' decisions about work and housing. is a project of the Minnesota Department of Human Services About the Findings Presented in this Report ar�r��a. `' The findings presented in this report are primarily descriptive to allow the Minnesota Board so Aging reader room for their own interpretations and uses of the data. The findings Minnesota below cover responses to all of the questions asked in the original four -page Department of He alth mail survey. The first level of bullets report the responses of all respondents, while the second level reports notable differences between sub - groups of respondents, e.g., differences by age, gender, or health status. The findings below are based on data that were weighted to reflect the actual age CONTACT iINFORMATIONI Email distribution of Minnesota's baby boomer population. transform.2010@state.mn.us Web site /2010 For more information about the specific methods used to conduct this survey www. d hs. sta te. m n. u s please refer to the Methodology section at the conclusion of this report. If you General inquires call have questions about any findings reported here or would like access to the Minnesota Board on Aging (651) 431 -2500 survey data set, please contact Peter Spuit at Peter.Spuit @state.mn.us or LaRhae Knatterud at Larhae.l<natterud @ state.mn.us, Attachment III NOVEMBER 20110 " . M: a A. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life overall ® 87 percent of respondents reported being satisfied with their life overall, with nearly half of respondents (46 %) indicating that they were very satisfied • Respondents who were working at all for pay were more satisfied (88 %) than people not working at all for pay (79 %) • Married /partnered respondents (89 %) and those who live with others (88 %) reported greater satisfaction with life than unmarried /partnered respondents (79 %) and those who live alone (78 %) • Respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (95 %) or have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (91 %) were much more satisfied with their lives overall than respondents who just meet (79 %) or don't meet their basic expenses (58 %) • Respondents who reported that their current health status was good or excellent (90 %) were much more satisfied with life than respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (63 %) • Respondents who indicated they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and /or employment (70 %) were less satisfied with life than respondents who did not have such a condition (90 %) B. Respondents were also asked if they were optimistic or pessimistic about the next ten years ® Over two thirds of respondents (70 %) reported that they were optimistic about the next ten years, with over half (53 %) describing their outlook as somewhat optimistic • Married /partnered respondents (73 %) and those who live with others (72 %) tended to be more optimistic than unmarried /partnered respondents (65 %) and those who live alone (64 %) • Respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (86 %) or have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (74 %) were more optimistic about the next ten years than respondents who just meet (56 %) or don't meet their basic expenses (38 %) • Of the 38 percent of respondents who don't meet their basic expenses, 23 percent reported being very pessimistic about the next ten years • Roughly a third of respondents (34 %) who were currently not working at all for pay indicated that they were pessimistic about the future, compared to one quarter of respondents (25 %) who were working at all for pay • Respondents who reported that their current health status was good or excellent were much more optimistic about the next ten years (74 %) than respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (41 %) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey A. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their current housing situation • 90 percent of respondents reported that they were satisfied with their current housing, with 60 percent indicating that they were very satisfied • Respondents who reported greater dissatisfaction with their housing included those who were unmarried /partnered (13 %), living alone (12 %), or not working at all for pay ( %) • Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (16 %) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and /or employment (13 %) were also more dissatisfied with their housing situation than respondents who described their health as good or excellent (6 %) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (6 %) B. The survey asked whether respondents own or rent their current home • The vast majority of respondents indicated that they own their home (93 %) • Home ownership was more common among respondents who are older (95 %), married /partnered (97 %), or living with others (95 %), as compared to younger respondents (91 %), those who are unmarried /partnered (78 %), or who live alone (80 %) • Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses were much more likely to rent their home (20 %) than respondents who live comfortably (2 %), have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (5 %), or just meet their basic expenses (8 %) • Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (13 %) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and /or employment (12 %) were almost three times as likely to rent their home as respondents who described their health as good or excellent (5 %) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (5 %) C. Respondents were asked about the type of residence in which they live • The vast majority of respondents reported that they live in a single family home (88 %) • A relatively small portion of respondents reside in a townhome or condominium (7 %), an apartment (3 %), or mobile home or some other residence (3 %) oTownhomes and condominiums were more common among respondents who live alone (21 %) or those who were not married /partnered (18 %), versus those who live with others (5 %) or were married /partnered (4 %) • Townhomes and condominiums were also more common among respondents who live in the 7- county metro area (12 %) versus outstate Minnesota (3 %) • Older respondents, born between 1946 and 1951, were twice as likely to live in a townhome or condominium (10 %) than younger respondents, born between 1959 and 1964 (5 %) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 3 D. Survey respondents were asked about who lives in their household • Over three quarters of respondents (77 %) reported that they live with a spouse /partner • Nearly a quarter of respondents (23 %) indicated that they share a residence with someone under 18 or an adult child, grandchild or niece /nephew • Of all respondents, 14 percent reported that they live alone • A relatively small portion of respondents indicated that they live with other adult friends or relatives (3 %) or older adult parents or grandparents (1.4 %) o The majority of unmarried /partnered respondents live alone (64 %) o It was also more common for unmarried /partnered respondents to report that they live with other adult friends or relatives (7 %) or older adult parent or grandparent (2.4 %), than those who were married /partnered (2% and 1 %, respectively) • Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (26 %) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and /or employment (23 %) were roughly twice as likely to five alone than respondents who described their health as good or excellent (13 %) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (13 %) • Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (27 %) were much more likely to live alone than respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (10 %), have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (14 %), or just meet their basic expenses (17 %) E. The survey asked respondents about how many years they had lived in their current home • Nearly three quarters of respondents (73 %) reported residing in their home for 10 years or more; of these respondents, 39 percent reported living in their home for 20 years or more • Just over a quarter of respondents (26 %) reported moving in the past 9 years; of these respondents, only 3 percent of respondents had moved in the past year • Married /partnered respondents (76 %) and those who live with others (75 %) reported living in the same home ten years or longer more often than unmarried /partnered respondents (63 %) or those who live alone (62 %) • Unmarried /partnered respondents (18 %) and those who live alone (18 %) reported more moves in the past 4 years than married /partnered respondents (9 %) and respondents who live with others (10 %) • Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses reported more moves in the past 9 years (35 %) than respondents who are more financially secure ( - 25 %) F. The survey also asked respondents about how many years they had lived in their current community ® Nearly three quarters of respondents (72 %) reported that they had lived in their current community for 10 or more years; of these respondents, 51 percent reported that they had lived in the same community for more than 20 years • Remaining in the same community for 20 years or more was more common among outstate respondents (58 %) than respondents from the 7- county metro area (45 %) • Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses changed communities more often in the past 9 years (18 %) than respondents who are more financially secure ( - 11 %) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 4 A. The survey asked all respondents about how many additional years they expect they will stay in their current home A majority of respondents (52 %) indicated that they plan to stay in their current home an additional 10 years or more; of these respondents, 27 percent reported that they plan to remain in their home for an additional 20 years or more Nearly a third of respondents (32 %) expected to move from their current home within the next 9 years Roughly 1 in every 6 respondents (15 %) indicated that they did not know how long they expect to stay in their home • Younger respondents expect to remain in their current homes longer than older respondents. Even so, nearly a quarter of respondents (23 %) born between 1946 and 1951 plan to stay in their homes for 20 years of more • More than a third of outstate respondents (35 %) plan to remain in their current home for 20 years of more, as compared to roughly half as many respondents from the 7- county metro area (19 %) • Unmarried /partnered respondents (39 %) and respondents who live alone (40 %) expected that they might move in the next 9 years more often than married /partnered respondents (31 %) and respondents who live with others (31 %) • Respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (60 %) expect to stay in their current homes longer than respondents that have some money left over after meeting their basic expenses (55 %), and respondents who just meet (48 %) or do not meet their basic expenses (35 %) Figure 1: Additional Years Respondents Expect to Stay in their Current Home, by Year of Birth (n= 3,809) 20 years or more 10 -19 years 5 -9 years 1 -4 years Less than 1 year Prefer Not to Answer No Answer 111946-1951 1952 -1958 1959 -1964 Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 5 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% B. The survey also asked all respondents about how many additional years they expect they will stay in their current community • Nearly half of all respondents (49 %) indicated that they plan to remain in their current community for the next 10 years or more; of these respondents, 31 percent indicated that they plan to stay for 20 or more years • Nearly one fifth of all respondents (19 %) reported that they are considering a move to a different community within the next 9 years • Roughly one third of respondents (32 %) are unsure of their plans, with 16 percent preferring not to answer and 16 percent leaving the survey question unanswered • More than a third of outstate respondents (37 %) plan to remain in their current community for 20 years of more, as compared to roughly a quarter of respondents from the 7- county metro area (24 %) • Respondents currently living in the 7- county metro area were more likely to report an expected move to a different community in the next 9 years o Respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (55 %) were planning to stay in their current community longer than respondents that have some money left over after meeting their basic expenses (50 %), or respondents who just meet (46 %) or don't meet (32 %) their basic expenses Figure 2: Additional Years Respondents Expect to Stay in their Community, by Year of Birth (n= 3,809) 20 years or more 10 -19 years 5 -9 years 1 -4 years Less than 1 year Prefer Not to Answer No Answer 12 1946 -1951 1952 -1958 m1959-1964 Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 6 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Figure 3: Additional Years Respondents Expect to Stay in their Community, Metro vs. Outstate (n= 3,809) 20 years or more 10 -19 years 5 -9 years 1 -4 years Less than 1 year Prefer Not to Answer No Answer ;- Outstate 7- County Metro C. All survey respondents were asked to predict who they might be living with 10 years from now in 2020 • Nearly three quarters of respondents (73 %) expected to be living with a spouse or partner ® 11 percent expected they would be living alone, while 13 percent of respondents responded that they didn't know what to expect ® Roughly 5 percent indicated they expect to be living with someone under 18 or an adult child, while only 1.5 percent reported that they expect to be living with a friend or another adult relative or an older adult relative • Nearly 1 in every 5 respondents (19 %) who are currently unmarried /partnered indicated that they expect to be living with a spouse /partner in 2020 • Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (19 %) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and /or employment (19 %) were roughly twice as likely to expect to live alone in 2020 than respondents who described their health as good or excellent (10 %) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (10 %) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 7 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Figure 4: Living Arrangements in 2010 as Compared to Expected Living Arrangements in 2020 (n= 3,798) Yourself only, no one else Your spouse or partner Someone under 18 (child, grandchild, niece /nephew) Adult child, grandchild, niece /nephew Your or your spouse's /partner's parents or grandparents Friend(s), sibling(s) or other adults Don't Know or Prefer not to answer U 2010 E2020 4. Future Living Arrangements: Questions asked of Respondents Considering a Move in the Next 10 Years A. Respondents to this section of the survey were asked an open- ended, write -in question about the main reasons they are thinking about moving within the next 10 years Responses were coded into eight major categories: climate, cost, home characteristics, home location, changes to family size /structure, changes in health, the desire for a fresh start, and other Most respondents indicated they wanted to move due to home characteristics (41 %), mainly because they desire a smaller home (14 %), less home maintenance (8 %), or want the option of living on one level (3 %) i A third of respondents reported that they were considering a move to what they considered a better location (33 %). For these respondents, a "better" location was a place closer to family and friends (4 %) and job opportunities (4 %). Respondents also expressed interest in safe, well- managed communities (4 %) and more rural areas (3 %) • 1 in every 5 respondents (20 %) indicated that they were considering a move due to the cost of housing or general cost of living, pointing especially to rising property taxes (4 %), the cost of their monthly housing bills (4 %), and problems with their employment or personal finances (3 %) ® Nearly a quarter of respondents (24 %) were thinking of moving to have a different experience, with 5 percent desiring a different climate and 6 percent wanting to retire in a new home or place a 10 percent wanted to move because their family has changed in some way (e.g., an "empty nest" or a new marriage), and 5 percent planned to move because of a health change in the family ® 6 percent of respondents described other reasons for wanting to move Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 8 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Figure 5: Reasons for Moving Reported by Respondents Considering a Move in the next 10 Years (n= 1,013) Home characteristics Home location Cost of housing /Cost of living Fresh start /Retire to new place Climate /Freedom to travel Change in size of family Change in health of family member Other B. Respondents were asked whether they would stay in their current community or move to a larger or smaller community • The largest portion of respondents (39 %) indicated that they didn't know whether they would stay or move to a different community • Among respondents that had a plan for their next move, 24 percent said they would remain in their same community, while another 24 percent said they would move to a smaller community 12 percent of respondents reported that they plan to move to a larger community C. Respondents were also asked whether the next time they move they would stay in the same area of Minnesota, move to a different area of Minnesota, or move to a different area of the U.S. or the world ® Well more than a third of respondents (41 %) expect to stay in the same area of Minnesota if they should decide to move A similar proportion of respondents (40 %) reported that they were considering a move to a different area, with 22 percent considering other parts of the US, 17 percent looking at other parts of the state, and 1 percent considering a move to another country 19 percent of respondents indicated that they didn't know where they might move D. Respondents were asked whether they might move closer to services and other amenities or family and friends • Nearly half of respondents (44 %) wanted to move closer to services and amenities, while a slightly smaller portion of respondents (38 %) wanted to move closer to friends and family • Older respondents born between 1946 and 1951 reported more interest in moving closer to services and amenities (50 %), and family and friends (46 %), than younger respondents born between 1959 and 1964 (34% and 29 %, respectively) • Female respondents were more interested than males in moving to a home closer to services and amenities (48% vs. 40 %), and family and friends (46% vs. 30 %) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 9 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% • Respondents who indicated they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and /or employment (53 %) had more interest in moving closer to services than respondents who did not have such a condition (44 %) • Respondents who reported that their current health status was fair or poor (46 %) were more interested in moving closer to family and friends than respondents who indicated their health was good or excellent (37 %) E. Respondents were asked whether they would look for a home that would allow them to live on one level ® More than two thirds of respondents (68 %) indicated that if they were to move in the next 10 years they would look for a home where they could live on one level ® 20 percent responded that they did not know whether they would seek this feature in a home, and 12 percent said they would not look for this feature o Older respondents were more likely than younger respondents to indicate a desire for single -level living • Respondents born between 1946 and 1951 responded yes to this question at a rate of 79 percent, while those born between 1952 and 1958, responded yes nearly as often (73 %) •The youngest group of respondents, born between 1959 and 1964, responded yes at a rate of 53 percent o Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (75 %) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and employment (76 %) were more interested in single -level living than respondents who described their health as good or excellent (68 %) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (67 %) Figure 6: Percent of Respondents Interested in the Option of Single -Level Living, by Year of Birth (n =1353) Yes m Don't know m 1946 -1951 w, 1952 -1958 im 1959 -1964 F. Respondents were also asked whether they will own or rent their next home • More than two thirds of respondents (69 %) indicated that they plan to own their next home, while 13 percent expect to rent • Nearly 1 in every 5 respondents (18 %) are unsure whether they will own or rent should they move in the next ten years Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% • Older respondents (18 %) were more likely to indicate an interest in renting than younger respondents (11 %) • Females (15 %), unmarried /partnered respondents (26 %) and respondents who currently live alone (25 %) also reported that they would more likely rent than own, as compared 11 percent of males, 8 percent of married /partnered respondents, and 11 percent of those who live with others • Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (36 %) were much more likely to expect to rent their home in the future than respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (5 %), have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (10 %), or just meet their basic expenses (19 %) • Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (33 %) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and employment (26 %) were almost three times more likely to expect to rent in the future than respondents who described their health as good or excellent (11 %) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (11 %) G. Finally, the survey asked respondents about what type of home they might choose the next time they move • Well more than a third of respondents (42 %) reported that they expect they will live in a single family home the next time they move • More than a quarter of respondents (28 %) indicated that they are considering a move to a townhome or condominium • Nearly 10 percent are considering moves to apartments, with 6 percent reporting an interest in senior -only apartments and another 3 percent expressing an interest in apartments for all ages • Roughly 1 in every 5 respondents (19 %) were unsure to what type of home they would move next, while 2 percent indicated they will move to some other type of home • Older respondents indicated more interest in townhomes or condominiums (31 %) and senior -only apartments (12 %) than younger respondents (23% and 2 %, respectively) • Females favored townhomes or condominiums (32 %), senior -only apartments (7 %), and apartments for all ages (4 %) more than male respondents (24 %, 5% and 2 %, respectively) • Respondents in fair or poor health (32 %), people who do not meet their basic expenses (27 %), and unmarried /partnered respondents (25 %) were most unsure of the type of their next home • Respondents who were most favorable toward senior -only apartments included people in fair or poor health (16 %), people with chronic conditions that affect their choices around housing (16 %), and people who just meet their basic expenses (11 %); these respondents were 2 -3 times more favorable toward senior apartments than all respondents (6 %) • Respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (37 %) were more likely to favor townhomes or condominiums than respondents who have some money left over after meeting their basic expenses (31 %), or respondents who just meet (19 %) or don't meet (17 %) their basic expenses Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 11 Figure 7: Types of Housing in 2010 as Compared to Expected Housing Types in 2020 for Respondents Considering a Move in the next Ten Years (2010 n= 3,803; 2020 n= 1,417) Single family home Townhome or condominium Apartment for all ages Apartment for seniors Something else Don't know 5. Current Work and Financial Situation ME 2010 A. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their overall level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their employment situation ® Just over three quarters of respondents (76 %) reported that they were satisfied with their current employment situation; of these respondents, 40 percent indicated that they were very satisfied 19 percent indicated that they were dissatisfied, and another 5 chose not to answer the question Of the 19 percent of respondents who reported that they were dissatisfied with their employment situation, 9 percent were very dissatisfied o Respondents who reported that their current health status was good or excellent (80 %) were much more satisfied with their current employment than respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (49 %) o Respondents who indicated they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and employment (55 %) were much less satisfied with their employment than respondents who did not have such a condition (80 %) B. Respondents were also asked about whether and how they are currently working for pay • The majority of respondents (68 %) reported that they are working full -time; of these respondents, 58 percent were working for an employer and 10 percent were self- employed • One fifth of respondents (20 %) reported that they are working part -time, with 14 percent working for an employer and 6 percent self- employed 0 18 percent of respondents indicated that they are unemployed; of respondents who are currently unemployed, 8 percent are not looking for paid work, 6 percent are searching for work, and 4 percent are unable to work o Younger respondents, born 1959 -1964, were more likely to be working full -time (77 %) than older respondents, born 1946 -1951 (48 %) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 12 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% C. To better understand what non -paid work respondents participated in over the past year, we asked a series of questions about these types of activities ® The majority of respondents (56 %) spent some time in the past year volunteering to help others • Over a third of respondents (36 %) spent time with or provided care for a child, while one quarter of respondents (25 %) provided care for a friend or family member with an illness or disability • Respondents also indicated that they are pursuing continuing education, whether to advance their career (25 %) or for personal enrichment (20 %) • Finally, nearly a quarter of respondents (23 %) indicated that they did not take part in any of these activities or otherwise did not provide responses o Females were more likely than males to report having spent time volunteering (60% vs. 52 %), pursuing education for personal enrichment (23% vs. 16 %), caring for a child (41% vs. 30 %), or caring for a loved one with an illness or disability (29% vs. 20 %) o Respondents who indicated they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and /or employment (30 %) were more likely to care for an ill or disabled relative or friend than respondents who did not have such a chronic condition (23 %) D. Respondents were asked to indicate their overall level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their current financial situation Roughly two thirds of respondents (67 %) reported that they were satisfied with their financial situation; of these respondents, 23 percent were very satisfied and 44 percent were somewhat satisfied The remaining third of respondents (33 %) were either dissatisfied with their financial situation or did not provide an answer; 20 percent were somewhat dissatisfied, 10 percent were very dissatisfied and 3 percent did not answer • Respondents born between 1946 and 1951 were more satisfied with their financial situation (71 %), than younger respondents, born 1952 -1958 (67 %) and 1959 -1964 (63 %) • Married /partnered respondents (69 %) and respondents living with others (68 %) reported greater satisfaction with their financial situation than unmarried /partnered respondents (58 %), and those who live alone (59 %) o Respondents who described their health as good or excellent (70 %) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their housing or employment choices (70 %) were much more satisfied with their current financial situation than respondents who indicated Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 13 their health was fair or poor (38 %) or that have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and employment (46 %) E. Respondents were asked to describe their household's current financial situation, indicating whether they live comfortably, meet their basic expenses with some left over, meet their basic expenses, or do not meet their basic expenses 0 Roughly two thirds of respondents (67 %) reported that they either live comfortably (34 %) or have money left over after they meet their basic expenses (33 %) 6 20 percent of respondents indicated that they just meet their basic expenses, while another 8 percent reported that they do not meet their basic expenses • More respondents from the 7- county metro (39 %) reported that they live comfortably financially than respondents from outstate Minnesota (29 %) • Unmarried /partnered respondents (15 %) and those who live alone (15 %) do not meet their basic expenses twice as often as married /partnered respondents (5 %) and respondents living with others (7 %) • Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (22 %) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and /or employment (17 %) fail to meet their basic expenses much more often than respondents who described their health as good or excellent (6 %) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (6 %) Figure 8: Respondent Financial Situation based on Marital /Partner Status and Living Arrangement (n= 3,809) Married /Partnered Not Married /Partnered ® Live comfortably ic Meet your basic expenses with some left over Live with Others Live Alone Just meet your basic expenses n Don't meet your basic expenses F. Finally, respondents were asked whether they received certain types of financial assistance in the past year, 0 10 percent of respondents indicated that they had received income through Social Security, while 9 percent had received unemployment benefits within the past year 8 percent of respondents indicated that they had received financial assistance from a friend or family member ® Another 5 percent reported that they had been enrolled in one of Minnesota's public health care programs Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 14 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% • Of the respondents who reported receiving any kind of support, 40 percent received social security income, 36 percent received unemployment benefits, 29 percent received help financial support from a family member or friend, and 20 percent were enrolled in a public health program • 27 percent of respondents born between 1946 and 1951 reported receiving Social Security income; whereas only 4 -5 percent of younger respondents were receiving income from this source • Receipt of unemployment benefits was most common among the youngest of respondents (12 %), with 7 -9 percent of older respondents drawing on these benefits • Males (11 %) were more likely than females (7 %) to report receiving unemployment • Unmarried /partnered respondents (15 %) and those who live alone (11 %) reported receiving more financial assistance from friends and family than married /partnered respondents (6 %) and respondents who live with others (7 %) • Unmarried /partnered respondents (12 %) and those who live alone (13 %) were also more likely to report being enrolled in a public health care program than married /partnered respondents (3 %) and respondents living with others (4 %) 6. Future Work and Financial Situation A. Survey respondents were asked how much time they expect they will spend working for pay for an employer in 2020 compared to 2010 • 37 percent of respondents reported that they expect to be working about the same amount in 2020 as they do now ® A quarter of respondents (25 %) indicated that they plan to be working less, while 5 percent expect to work more ® Nearly a quarter of respondents (23 %) indicated that would not be working at all by 2020 • 10 percent of respondents were unsure of their future plans around work 0 49 percent of respondents born between 1946 and 1951 reported that they plan to spend no time at all working for pay in 2020 o Among respondents born between 1946 and 1951, 39 percent indicated they would spend some time working for pay; of these respondents, 28 percent said they would spend less time working, 9 percent said they work as much as before, and 2 percent said they would work more B. Survey respondents were also asked about how much time they expect they will be spending self - employed in 2020 compared to 2010 i More than a third of respondents (42 %) reported that they were not planning on self - employment in the future ® More than a quarter of respondents (27 %) indicated that they would spend some time self - employed in 2020, with 8 percent planning to spend more time ® 19 percent of respondents expressed that they did not know if they would consider self - employment; an additional 11 percent chose not to respond to the question o Roughly a third of respondents (32 %) born between 1959 and 1964 reported that they expect to spend some time self - employed by 2020; of these respondents, 17 Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 15 percent said they would spend about the same amount of time self- employed as in 2010, and 10 percent said they would spend more time Figure 9: Employment in 2010 as Compared to Expected Employment in 2020, by Year of Birth (n= 3,809) Employed by Employer * Self- Employed Not Employed Something Else /Don't Know w No Answer C. Survey respondents were asked about how much time they expect they will spend on education for career advancement or personal enrichment in 2020 compared to the time they spent on education in 2010 ® More than a third of respondents (35 %) indicated that they will spend some time pursuing education for career advancement, whereas half of all respondents (50 %) indicated they would spend some amount of time on education for personal enrichment • 39 percent of respondents reported that they would spend no time at all on education for career advancement, whereas 23 percent of respondents reported that they would not spend time on education for personal enrichment ® 27 percent of respondents did not know what future time they might spend on education or did not respond to the question D. Survey respondents were also asked about how much time they expect they will spend volunteering to help others in 2020 compared to the time they spent volunteering in 2010 • More than three quarters of respondents (76 %) plan to spend time volunteering in 2020; of these respondents, 38 percent plan to spend more time volunteering than they did in 2010 ® 19 percent of respondents were unsure whether or how much they would volunteer, while 5 percent of respondents indicated that they would not spend time volunteering o Respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (49 %) expected to spend more time volunteering in the future than respondents who have some money left over after meeting their basic expenses (41 %), or those who just meet (24 %) or don't meet their basic expenses (27 %) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 16 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Survey respondents were asked if they plan to stop working for pay at some age, or not More than half of respondents (56 %) reported that they have already stopped working for pay (10 %) or that they plan to stop working for pay in the future (46 %) • Of respondents who indicated that they plan to stop working at some point in the future, 64 was the mean age at which they plan to stop working; 68 percent of respondents responded with an age between 60 and 68 • Of respondents who had already stopped working, 55 was the mean age at which they had stopped working; 68 percent of respondents responded with an age between 48 and 62 Nearly a quarter of respondents (23 %) indicated that they have no plans to stop paid work 21 percent of respondents were unsure about whether and when they would stop paid work • Not surprisingly, respondents born between 1946 and 1951 were more likely to have reported that they had already stopped working (26 %) than younger respondents (6% and 2 %, respectively) • Younger respondents were more likely to report that they don't plan to stop working for pay (28 %) than older respondents (16 %) • Younger respondents were also more likely to report uncertainty about the possibility to stop paid work (23 %) than older respondents (16 %) • Men (49 %) and married /partnered respondents (48 %) plan to stop working for pay more often than women (43 %) and unmarried /partnered respondents (39 %) Figure 10: Respondent Plans to Stop Working for Pay, by Current Household Financial Situation (n= 3,809) Plan to stop working for pay Have already stopped working for pay Don't plan to stop working for pay Don't know Live comfortably Meet basic expenses with some left over Just meet basic expenses im Don't meet basic expenses Finally, respondents were asked how they would expect to describe their household's financial situation ten years from now in 2020 Roughly two thirds of respondents (68 %) reported that they expect to either live comfortably (32 %) or have money left over after they meet their basic expenses (36 %) 13 percent of respondents indicated that they expect to just meet their basic expenses, while 4 percent doubt they will meet their basic expenses 12 percent were unsure what to expect about their future financial situation; 3 percent of respondents preferred not to answer Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 17 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% • More respondents from the 7- county metro (36 %) reported that they expect to live comfortably in 2020 than respondents from outstate Minnesota (29 %) • Unmarried /partnered respondents (35 %) and those who live alone (34 %) more often expected that they will not meet their basic expenses in 2020 than married /partnered respondents (22 %) and respondents who live with others (22 %) Figure 11: Household Financial Situation in 2010 as Compared to Expected Financial Situation in 2020, by Year of Birth (n= 3,809) Live comfortably 7. Long -term Care and Family Caregiving ■ Meet your basic expenses with some left over m Just meet your basic expenses Don't meet your basic expenses m Don't Know /Prefer Not to Answer /No Answer A. Survey respondents were asked whether they have any chronic physical or mental chronic conditions) that affects the choices they make about housing and /or employment • 13 percent of respondents indicated that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices about housing and /or employment • 83 percent of respondents reported that they did not have such a condition E 3 percent of respondents preferred not to answer this question • Older respondents reported having chronic conditions that affect their housing and /or employment choices (17 %) more often than younger respondents (10 %) • Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (30 %) were much more likely to report having a chronic condition that affects their choices around employment and /or housing than respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (7 %), have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (12 %), or just meet their basic expenses (20 %) B. Respondents were asked what they would most likely do if they could no longer live independently for health reasons Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 18 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% • one third of respondents (34 %) indicated that they would most likely stay in their home with assistance from family, friends and /or an agency; of these respondents, half preferred to receive assistance from family or friends and half from an agency • Another 7 percent of respondents indicated that they would share a residence with a family member or friend, which may or may not entail a move ® 28 percent of respondents indicated that they would move to assisted living or a nursing facility, with 27 percent indicating an interest in assisted living ® Roughly a third of respondents reported that they were either unsure of what they would do (27 %) or preferred not to answer (3 %) o Male respondents were more likely to plan on family and friends providing them care (22 %) than female respondents (13 %) o Female respondents (30 %) and married /partnered respondents (28 %) were more likely to express interest in assisted living than male (24 %) or unmarried /partnered respondents (22 %) • Respondents that indicated that they live comfortably financially (34 %) were more likely to express interest in assisted living than those who do not meet their basic expenses (16 %), just meet their basic expenses (21 %), or those who have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (27 %) • Respondents who indicated that they are in good or excellent health were more likely to favor assisted living (28 %) than those in fair or poor health (17 %) • Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (40 %) or just meet their basic expenses (34 %) were much more uncertain about what they would do if they could no longer live independently than respondents who reported that they live comfortably (19 %) or have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (27 %) Figure 12: Response to Health Change that affects Independence, by current Financial Situation (n= 3,809) C: Live comfortably 0 Meet basic expenses with some left over m U Just meet basic expenses LL c c Don't meet basic expenses 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Stay home with help share residence n Move to assisted living/ nursing facility im Don't know / Something else C. Respondents were also asked a question about how they think the cost of long -term care (e.g., help in their home, assisted living or nursing home care) will most likely be covered should they need it ® Nearly a third of respondents (32 %) indicated that they did not know how their long term care costs would be paid Nearly a quarter of respondents (22 %) planned to pay for long term care with their own savings and investments, while an additional 5 percent said they would tap the equity in their home Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 19 18 percent would utilize a government program, while roughly the same proportion (16 %) said they would rely on a long term care insurance product Only 2 percent of respondents said they would rely on family, friends or some other source for assistance with the cost of long term care o Responses about covering long term care costs were fairly consistent across the age groups surveyed o Respondents from the 7- county metro area were more inclined to fund long term care with their financial assets (26 %) than outstate respondents (18 %) o 37 percent of respondents who indicated that they live comfortably plan to use their own savings and investments to pay for long term care, as compared to 20 percent of those who reported they have money left over after meeting their basic expenses o 24 percent of respondents who reported that they live comfortably expressed support for long -term care insurance as a way to cover long term care costs, as compared to 16 percent of those who have money left over after meeting their basic expenses o Outstate respondents were more likely to consider a government program to help pay for long term care (22 %) than those from the 7- county metro area (14 %) o Unmarried /partnered respondents (25 %) and those who live alone (24 %) were also more likely to seek support from a government program than married /partnered respondents (16 %) and respondents living with others (17 %) o Respondents who indicated that they are in fair or poor health were more likely to seek support of a government program (28 %) than those in good or excellent health (17 %) o Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (38 %) were more likely to consider support of a government program as an option than respondents who live comfortably (7 %), have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (22 %), or those who just meet their basic expenses (26 %) o Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (40 %) or just meet their basic expenses (45 %) were much more uncertain about how the cost of long -term care would be covered than respondents who live comfortably (21 %) or have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (31 %) Figure 13: Respondents Plans to Cover the Cost of Long Term Care (n= 3,809) Don't know Personal savings or invesments A government program Long -term care insurance Home equity (e.g., reverse mortgage) Support from children /family Something else No answer Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 20 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% D. Survey respondents were asked about whether and how much time they expect to spend caring for a child in 2020 compared to the time they spent doing this activity in 2010 • Over half of all respondents (53 %) expect to spend some amount of time caring for a child in 2020 • 19 percent expect that they will spend no time at all caring for children and another 28 percent were either uncertain (21 %) or chose not to answer (7 %) Survey respondents were also asked about whether they expect they will provide care for an ill or disabled family member or friend by 2020 and how much time they will spend proving care • More than a third of respondents (38 %) indicated that they expect to spend some time caring for an ill or disabled friend or family member in 2020; of these respondents, 20 percent expected that they will spend more time caregiving than they do at present • A similar proportion of respondents were unsure (41 %) what to expect about their future caregiving responsibilities An additional 7 percent of respondents preferred not to answer the question • Younger respondents expected to see a greater increase in their caregiving responsibilities (27 %) than older respondents (11 %) • Female respondents were more likely to anticipate an increase in their caregiving responsibilities (22 %) than male respondents (18 %) Finally, respondents were asked whether they had provided financial support or assistance to a family member or friend in the past year • Roughly 60 percent of respondents reported providing financial support for one or more family members or friends • Nearly half of respondents (49 %) were supporting children of some age, while another 7 percent reported helping grandchildren • 11 percent indicated that they were providing financial support to their parents or grandparents • Another 12 percent were supporting a friend or other family member financially • 39 percent of respondents indicated that they had not provided family or friends financial support in the past year Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 21 SEM The survey collected a number of pieces of demographic information from respondents to support analysis of the results. This demographic information is also useful in determining whether the respondents tothis survey reflect the make-up of the general population of boomers in Minnesota. Based on the profile of survey respondents provided below, vve determined that the respondents do generally reflect the general population ofboomers. To provide some points of direct comparison to the general population the tables on race and ethnicity, place of residence and income below provide data on survey respondents and the general population. Gender (n=3,809) Year of Birth Percent 1946-1951 26% 1952-1958 38% 1959-1964 36% Unknown/Missing 1% Total 100% Gender (n=3,809) Percent Female 49% Male 50% Unknown/Missing 1% I Total 100% Race and Ethnicity (n=3,809) Percent Percent Minnesota Boomers* White 94.2% 91.49% Black/African American 1.2% 2.92% Hispanic 1.0% 1.99% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.9% 0.87% Other Race 0.6% 0.56% Asian or Pacific Islander 0.7% 2.17% Prefer Not to Answer 2.0% N/A Unknown/Missing 0.8% N/A Total 100% 100% * US Census, 2009r Relationship Status (n=3,809) Percent Married or Partnered 77% Divorced or Separated 10% Single, Never Married 8% Widowed 3% Unknown/Missing 2% Total 100% Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 22 Location in State (n= 3,809) (n= 3,809) Percent Percent Minnesota Boomers* 7- County Metro 49% 54% ®utstate 51% 46% Total 100% 100% * Minnesota State Demographic Center, 2007 Community Setting (n= 3,809) Percent Percent In the city of Minneapolis or St. Paul 8% In the suburbs of Minneapolis or St. Paul 39% In a larger city or town in greater Minnesota (e.g., Duluth, Rochester) 7% In a smaller city or town in greater Minnesota 23% In a rural area 22% Unknown /Missing 1% Total 100% Personal Health Status (n= 3,809) Percent Excellent 17% Very Good 37% Good 33% Fair 9% Poor 2% Prefer Not to Answer 1% Total 100% Household Income, before taxes (n= 3,809) Percent Minnesota Population (all households)* Under $25,000 8% 19% $25,000 - $39,999 10% 44% $40,000 - $59,999 17% $60,000 - $74,999 13% $75,000 or more 35% 37% Prefer not to answer 17% 0% Total 100% 100% * US Census, American Community Survey, 2006 -2008 Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 23 The results of the Baby Boomer Survey are based on 3,764 completed surveys gathered between July and September 2010. The overall response rate for the survey was 36 percent, based on a distribution of 10,500 surveys. In addition to the 3,764 completed returns that were analyzed for this report, another 487 surveys were returned and not used in the analysis. These returns were not used in the analysis for one of the following reasons: because the household lacked a respondent from the target age group (264), the survey questionnaire was returned undeliverable by the post office (152), the survey was returned after the cutoff date (68), or the return was submitted from out of state (3). The sample of 10,500 boomers was selected by a national sampling service that was hired by Transform 2010 on contract. The mailing list was based on a random sample of mailing addresses of households containing an individual in the target age group. The sample was segmented into three subgroups: boomers between 1946 and 1951, 1952 and 1958, and 1959 and 1964. Based on the objectives for the survey, boomers born between 1946 and 1951 were over - sampled. This will allow for in -depth data analysis of the "leading edge" of the generation in the future. In order to compare the responses of three age subgroups in this data report, the responses received by members of each subgroup were weighted to correspond with the distribution of boomers across the same age groups in Minnesota's general population. For example, each completed survey response by a boomer born between 1946 and 1951 was given the weight of roughly half a response, because we received nearly twice as many responses from this age group as compared to the general population. The margin of error for the survey ranges from ± 3 percent to ± 7 percent (with a confidence level of 95 percent). The margin of error is 3 percent for respondents born 1946 -1951 and as much as 7 percent for respondents born 1959 -1964. The focus of the survey was informed by a series of focus groups with boomers held from fall 2009 to spring 2010. The survey questionnaire was co- authored by Peter Spuit, Project Consultant, Transform 2010 and Lori Laflin, Department of Human Services Survey Researcher. Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 24 CITY OF SHOREWOOD TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 November 2011 RE: Cellular Antennas — Water Tower Capacities FILE NO. 405 (Telecommunication) Earlier this year, the City approved additional antennas for the top of the Southeast Area water tower. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission's consideration of that item, a question arose as to how much room remained on Shorewood's two water towers for additional antennas. Public Works Director, Larry Brown, advises us that there is ample room on the column of both city water towers. Also, some additional room exists on top of the tower located at the Minnewashta School site. The only capacity issue that currently exists is the top of the Southeast Area tower. In addition to the number of antennas located on a small rail system, the cabling for these antennas has now begun to encroach on the personnel access to the top of the tower. As such, Mr. Brown recommends that no more applications be accepted for the top of that tower. With respect to capacity on the columns, the technology is now such that antennas from different carriers can be designed to be mounted between existing antennas without interference. In the event the Planning Commission wishes to discuss this matter further, staff will have photographs of the existing tower facilities available for review at next Tuesday's meeting. Cc: Brian Heck Larry Brown James Landini 012, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD ,�SM11 TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 December 2011 RE: Planning Commission Work Program - 2012 FILE NO. 405 (Admin) At our meeting on 6 December, we will be discussing a work program for next year. Before we begin a list of tasks for the upcoming year, it may be worthwhile to review what was accomplished from last year's work program. Following are items which were completed in 2011: • Zoning Code amendment — setbacks from firelanes • Trash enclosure ordinance • Shady Hills Traffic Control Study • Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study • Deer feeding ban survey and code amendment • Sustainability (Minnesota GreenSteps Program) • Zoning Code amendment — age requirements for senior housing • Dock vs deck study • Zoning Code amendment — dynamic signs • Zoning Code amendment — variances • Review /comment — Trail Implementation Report • Zoning Code amendment — accessory buildings • Comment on dog regulation changes • Code amendment — farm and other animals • Code amendment — massage therapist licensing • Discuss life -cycle housing (just starting) • Discuss water tower capacity relative to cellular antennas There were two "cans that got kicked down the road ": 1) a revisit of zoning permits; and 2) a revisit of Planning District 6 (east end of the County Road 19 corridor). ®s r ®1J® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Work Program 2012 1 December 2011 Following are a list of topics that staff has assembled, in no particular order of priority except for #1: 1. Zoning Code study — entry porches /allowable encroaclunents 2. Zoning permits — revisit proposed draft ordinance 3. Review Comprehensive Plan — Planning District 6 4. Zoning Code study — mixed use regulations 5. Life -cycle housing discussion (several facets) 6. Comprehensive Plan study — variances and nonconformities 7. Planning Commission Training Session (joint with other cities) 8. Model landscaping ordinance — low maintenance landscaping 9. Study "no net loss of specified natural landscapes" 10. Study Zoning Code — General Provisions 11 Study landscaping /nuisance ordinances 12. Items to be added by Planning Commission 13. Items to be added by City Council This list is not considered to be exhaustive and it is expected that the Planning Commission will have items to add. Hopefully at Tuesday night's meeting we can assign some order of priority to the list and layout a schedule for review. Cc: Brian Heck