Loading...
PC-10-18-11 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2011 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek and Hutchins; Planning Director Nielsen; Administrator Heck; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, approving the agenda for as presented. Motion passed 7/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  September 20, 2011 Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2011, amended in Item 1, Page 2, Paragraph 8, Sentence 1, change “Arnst commented that the striped on-road trail on Smithtown Road, which was a compromise in the first place, was originally planned to be on both sides of the road but only one side has a wider shoulder striped.” to “Arnst commented that the striped on-road trail on Smithtown Road was a compromise reached when a trail could not be built at the time Smithtown was reconstructed. The striping was done as 2 foot – 4 foot shoulders. When the road was seal coated several years ago, the striping was changed to eliminate the shoulder on the north side, contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.”, and in Paragraph 10 replace “Commissioner Arnst noted that the City needs to keep the brush trimmed back along the trails.” with “Commissioner Arnst noted that in 2000-2001 when the Park Commission did a trail walk on Enchanted Island, they agreed that a trail was not feasible, but at the time recommended that the brush be kept trimmed back to allow pedestrians to walk closer to the edge and an escape route if needed.”. Motion passed 7/0.  October 4, 2011 Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2011, as amended in Item 3, Page 3, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1, change “Commissioner Hasek said he doesn't see three cars per minute as a huge problem” to “Commissioner Hasek said he doesn't see one car every three minutes, or 20+/- cars per hour as a huge problem”. Motion passed 7/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 2 of 10 1. GUESS SPEAKERS – URBAN FARMING Audrey Matson and Bob Lies, EggPlant Urban Farm Company Chair Geng introduced Bob Lies, with EggPlant Urban Farm Company, who was present to discuss urban farming. He thanked Mr. Lies for taking the time to come this evening. Mr. Lies stated that he and his wife own and operate EggPlant Urban Farm Supply; a small farm supply store located in St. Paul. They focus on food production and preservation. They teach classes on chicken keeping and they sell laying chickens only. There is a huge interest in local, small flock chicken keeping. Mr. Lies explained in St. Paul the permitting cost varies based on the number of chickens. In Minneapolis it’s a multi-animal permit and it’s a flat fee. The permits must be renewed annually. Some cities exclude chickens from their list of prohibited farm animals that can be raised in the city. Some municipalities treat chickens as either farm animals or an exotic. Others treat chickens like any other bird (e.g., a parrot). A chicken is kenneled like a dog. Most municipalities have a general ordinance about animals and chickens are usually addressed in the ordinance. From his vantage point there is no reason not to be able to have chickens if you can have other pets. The drawbacks to owning chickens are the same as for any other pet. Mr. Lies then explained a broiler chicken (a chicken raised for meat) has a much different life span (3 months) than a laying chicken (5 – 10 years, but only lay eggs for a portion of that). The number of vets that treat chickens is growing in Minneapolis and St. Paul as are the number of small scale butchers. Mr. Lies reviewed the benefits of owning a chicken. They can exist in a small space. Chickens require less care than a dog but more care than a cat. Hens are quiet, but a rooster is noisy. Hens make a noise when there is a predator and when they lay an egg. Hens are dormant at night. St. Paul does not allow roosters; Minneapolis does as long as they are permitted. Commissioner Hasek asked if you can quiet a rooster. Mr. Lies stated there is no way to change a rooster’s behavior. A rooster is going to crow at all hours. Mr. Lies noted you do not need a rooster for egg production. It’s only needed to fertilize the eggs. Chair Geng asked if there is any particular disease chickens carry that people should be concerned about. Mr. Lies responded the diseases are much less than those carried by dogs or other animals. Mr. Lies explained the numbers of diseases that are transmitted from poultry to people are fewer and less serious than those transmitted from a dog or cat. Geng then asked about transmission of diseases from chickens to other animals. Mr. Lies stated that is very unlikely because they are confined. Things such as the west nile virus and the avian flu can be transmitted to domestic flocks, but in general that doesn’t happen. Well maintained coops and well maintained run areas help to minimize transmission to domestic flocks. Mr. Lies explained chickens play a role in the composting cycle. They can eat excess food scraps and other stuff can be used for their bedding. Their manure is safe to put into vegetable gardens after going through the normal composting process; that is not true for dogs or cats. It makes a great fertilizer. They do some forms of pest control. Guinea hens are famous for tick control, but they are noisier and they can devastate a vegetable garden. Chickens have a pecking order and they will eat each other. Commissioner Garelick asked if chickens relate to humans. Mr. Lies responded they do but they are not going to cuddle like a dog or cat. Mr. Lies stated they encourage people to handle their chickens. Mr. Lies explained there are a large variety of chickens. Last year his company sold over 600 chicks for small flocks of 3 – 5 chickens in urban settings. A hen lays about 260 eggs per year. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 3 of 10 Mr. Lies explained to get a permit in Minneapolis an applicant has to show proof that their neighbors have no issue with it. St. Paul requires no rooster approval from 75 percent of the applicants’ neighbors within a 150-foot radius. St. Paul’s permit fee is $25 for up to three chickens with a renewal fee of $15. For more than three chickens the permit fee is $72 with a renewal fee of $27. The rooster ordinance varies. He recommended making an ordinance very clear. Council Liaison Woodruff asked Mr. Lies what his perspective is about ducks and geese in the context of permitting for chickens. Mr. Lies responded he considers ducks to be about the same; they are a ground nesting animal. It’s extremely important for an owner to have a secure area for their poultry (chickens and ducks). Director Nielsen asked if cats will go after chickens. Mr. Lies responded for him it’s not a problem because he raises larger chickens. The bigger concern is dogs, particularly bird dogs. Bird dogs will just kill the chickens; they won’t eat them. He has never lost a chicken to a cat. He has lost a couple to raccoons. Chickens, ducks and geese need to have a structure that keeps them safe. Mr. Lies stated there is a parade of coops in the Twin Cities that people can go and look at. He noted that his customers are not the immigrants who are raising chickens anyway because they have always had chickens. It never occurs to them to ask if they can have chickens; they assume they can. Most of the people who come to their store are educated, middle class people who are aware of food issues and trying to do things organically. Raising hens is not an economic necessity. Commissioner Hasek asked if the number of predator animals increase if farm animals are raised in residential areas by a significant number of people. Mr. Lies responded there may be an increase in the number of sightings, but not an in the increase in numbers because predators are not being fed. Hasek then asked if it would bring the predators in closer contact with people living at a property or adjacent to one where the farm animals are being raised. Mr. Lies responded he does not have the statistics to prove that either way. He stated the issue with raccoons is less about biting people with their rabies. There is an issue with their feces. Hasek related he has heard from someone who lives on a farm and raises chickens that a person has to be somewhat aware of rats. He asked Mr. Lies if that is an issue in urban areas as well. Mr. Lies responded he has not had issues with rats but other people have. He has had an issue with having a few field mice. He recommended an ordinance include a provision requiring feed to be stored in an animal proof container. Because farm animals have to be fed there will be food available for opportunistic animals. He also recommended locating coops a distance from the house. A kenneled dog with food outside also attracts similar animals. In response to a question from Director Nielsen, Mr. Lies recommended people raise 3 – 5 hens if they are going to have them. He stated you don’t want to have a single chicken; three is a good number. A hen lays only one egg a day. He explained that in order to raise hens as a business venture for selling eggs a person would need to have 10 – 20 hens, noting that is doable in a small space. In an urban area, space limits the amount of chickens a person can raise. His per-chicken space recommendations are 2 – 4 feet for interior space and 6 – 10 feet for run area. Commissioner Hutchins asked Mr. Lies to display pictures of coops. Mr. Lies showed a picture of the one he and his wife have. The coop has room for 4 – 5 chickens. He highlighted the area around the coop as well. Commissioner Arnst asked if Minneapolis and St. Paul have regulations regarding where the coop can be located. Mr. Lies responded they do. Minneapolis’ ordinance clearly stipulates a coop is an outbuilding CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 4 of 10 and therefore it has to be in compliance with all regulations for outbuildings. A site plan has to be included with the permit application. Mr. Lies stated hens will typically stop laying eggs in the winter here because there is not enough light. Therefore, people will typically heat the coop with a heat lamp or something with radiant heat. Chickens do not need a lot of heat. They will keep each other warm. In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Mr. Lies showed a picture of a few more elaborate coops. Commissioner Hasek asked if there is a requirement to visually screen coops from adjacent properties in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Mr. Lies stated he doesn’t know the answer to that. Hasek stated screening is needed for people who put up an unsightly coop. Mr. Lies stated he and his wife have a lot of personal experience about chickens. He noted he is just an enthusiast. Chair Geng thanked Mr. Lies for coming this evening and sharing his experiences. Commissioner Hasek asked if chickens can live in the run area. Mr. Lies responded they could. 2. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission had been provided with a copy of second draft of Ordinance Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals. This draft is in the City Code format and it includes most of the suggestions made by the Commissioners. This draft does not include a permit process. The Commission may want to consider adding that. It does not address dogs because they are addressed in Chapter 701 of the City Code. Commissioner Arnst asked if homeowner associations can prohibit any of the animals specifically addressed in the Ordinance. Director Nielsen responded they can. Arnst then asked why the Commission was asked to address this. Nielsen explained the City doesn’t have an ordinance addressing farm animals. A property owner who believes their property is considered a farm had indicated they may raise farm animals on their property. Today someone could raise chickens in the City because there is nothing prohibiting them from doing that. Director Nielsen noted the draft Ordinance divides farm animals into two classifications; rural and urban. It does allow for keeping chickens, ducks, geese and so forth. He commented some residents raise bees and the City does not have a regulation against doing that. Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission discussed the base Ordinance during its October 4, 2011, meeting. During that meeting he solicited suggestions from the Commissioners and also asked to send him their additional comments on it via email. He noted he received comments from two Commissioners and those have been incorporated into the second draft as best as he could. He also noted Commissioner Arnst had suggested to him that it wasn’t necessary to address wild animals in the ordinance. He stated that is up to the Commission. Director Nielsen stated the main purpose of the Ordinance is to address rural farm animals and to make reasonable provisions for urban farm animals. He then stated it does tie into discussions the Planning Commission has had about sustainability. He noted that after an article was published in a newspaper CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 5 of 10 about raising chickens in urban areas the City received a fair number of calls about whether or not the City allows that. Commissioner Arnst stated the Ordinance does speak to sustainability and that she is open to allowing residents to raise small urban farm animals such as chickens, geese and ducks provided there are restrictions on where a coop can be located. She stated coops should not be located in a front yard or in a corner of the back yard next to an adjacent property. It should be up close to the property owner’s house. The animals need to be contained and quiet, and neighbors should not have to be exposed to the smell. Director Nielsen explained Section 704.09 subd. 2(b) states “The shelter structure may not be located closer to the boundary line of adjacent property than it is to the principal structure on the animal owner's property, but in any event not less than 10 feet away from the boundary line of the adjacent property.” He noted that it applies to bees as well. Commissioner Hasek asked if doves or pigeons are addressed in the Ordinance. Director Nielsen responded they are not included in the definition of urban farm animal. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that definition of rural farm animal states “… and including, but not limited to other animals …”. The urban farm animal definition does not include that and maybe something similar should be added. Director Nielsen commented that pigeons are banned in the City of Brooklyn Park. Nielsen noted that he purposefully kept the list of allowable urban farm animals limited to food producing type animals. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Ordinance requires that neighbors must approve a permit. Director Nielsen responded it does not. Hasek suggested it be added. He noted that Mr. Lies recommended the Ordinance be very clear. Hasek recommended the Ordinance be more inclusive rather than less inclusive. He recommended a permit process be added and that the permit fee cover associated administrative costs. He recommended the coop be screened at the ground level, from a deck (independent of what story the deck is on), and so forth. Nielsen stated some coops don’t look any different than a shed so he questioned having to screen them. Nielsen then stated the run area is something different. Hasek stated if the style of the structure isn’t going to be complimentary to the residential house he suggested it be screened. He asked if the structure should have to fit with the character of the principal structure. Nielsen explained that only applies to outbuildings that are over 150 square feet in size. Hasek stated he doesn’t care if his neighbors want to raise urban farm animals. He just doesn’t want to have that part of his life. Commissioner Charbonnet suggested the Ordinance contain a provision to require animal feed be kept in an animal proof galvanized container to reduce the possibility of attracting predatory animals into the area. He also suggested adding regulations regarding the disposal of dead farm animals. Director Nielsen noted the draft Ordinance doesn’t address nuisance animals. He questioned if predatory animals could be addressed in that to-be-added area, but he wasn’t sure how that could be enforced. Council Liaison Woodruff stated there have to be some guidelines regarding where the animals will be allowed to roam. Should they be confined to a fenced in area or should they be allowed to roam freely? In response to a comment from Council Liaison Woodruff, Nielsen explained Section 704.09 subd. 2(e) states “An urban farm animal must not be kept on residentially-zoned property if it is being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially-zoned property.” Woodruff noted that would prohibit a bee keeper from selling honey. There was ensuing discussion about the location provision in Section 704.09 subd. 2(a) which states “An urban farm animal must not be kept or maintained on the front yard of the property, as defined by the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 6 of 10 Zoning Code.” and in Section 704.09 subd. 2(b) which states “The shelter structure may not be located closer to the boundary line of adjacent property than it is to the principal structure on the animal owner's property, but in any event not less than 10 feet away from the boundary line of the adjacent property.” Director Nielsen stated “on the front yard” be changed to “in the front yard”. He then stated he will refine the location provision language to stipulate the shelter structure has to be located in the buildable area of the back yard. Commissioner Davis suggested the Ordinance allow some flexibility for location, noting her own lot configuration and topography would not allow her to locate a structure in the buildable area of her backyard. She stated a site plan review would provide additional information about a lot. Director Nielsen stated he is not sure it’s possible to accommodate every lot configuration in the Ordinance. Commissioner Hasek suggested neighbors be given the opportunity to review site plans before they give their approval. Commissioner Arnst suggested the Planning Commission consider limiting the size of the shelter structure and run area to the sizes recommended by Mr. Lies. Commissioners Arnst and Hasek suggested the number of chickens be limited to four. Commissioner Davis said a number of chicken ordinances indicates almost all of them are for 3 – 5 birds. Council Liaison Woodruff suggested Staff research chicken-only ordinances to see what they include. Chair Geng cautioned against making the Ordinance expensive to comply with. If it’s too expensive people may be unlikely to apply for the permit. He stated that Mr. Lies indicated that high income people generally don’t have chicken coops. He clarified he was not against screening a shelter structure. He stated making it too expensive seems to be contrary to sustainability objectives. Commissioner Arnst stated she did not think there will be influx of permit applications to raise chickens because of the expense associated with raising chickens. She suggested a solution should be put in place before there is a need to address complaints from neighbors. Chair Geng asked if there will be criteria for each type of farm animal. Tonight the focus has been on chickens but there are other types of urban farm animals. Council Liaison Woodruff stated today there is no recourse if a neighbor has issues with what someone is doing. The Ordinance provides the City with a means for addressing complaints from neighbors. He then stated he agreed that the Ordinance should not be that specific and/or onerous that no one can afford to do it. Director Nielsen asked if chickens should be allowed to run within a fenced in yard or if they should be confined to a run area. Chair Geng stated to reduce attracting predatory animals it may be better to require the entire yard to be fenced. Commissioner Davis explained predators are not the issue for a person living in Duluth who raises chickens. Dogs are more of a problem. Chickens go into the shelter at night when the sun goes down. Davis recommended chickens be kept in a fenced in and roofed area. Council Liaison Woodruff stated requiring a fenced in area is a good idea. Chickens should not be allowed to roam freely in a yard that does not have a fence around it. If birds fly over the fence, that should be addressed as part of a nuisance provision. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 7 of 10 Commissioner Arnst asked if noise will be addressed in the nuisance ordinance. Director Nielsen responded it would, as will odor. Director Nielsen explained the draft Ordinance is trying to prevent rural farm animals and allow for urban farm animals. He asked if the Commission had problems with the list of rural animals. Commissioner Arnst stated the definitions for both rural farm animals and urban farm animals trouble her. Someone will find away to work around them. She commented the distinction between them is size. There was consensus that if someone wants to raise an urban farm animal that is not included in the definition then can submit a request to amend the Ordinance. Director Nielsen noted there is no need to have a public hearing on this Ordinance. He asked what the Commission thought about the wild animal section of the Ordinance. He noted he doesn’t think there is any harm in including it. Administrator Heck explained a few cities have Ordinances that prohibit keeping certain types of wild animals. Chair Geng suggested changing Item D in the definition of wild animal from “Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies, except domestic animals such as cows” to “Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies”. Director Nielsen stated this Ordinance needs the blessing from the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) because some of it must be enforced by the SLMPD. Chair Geng asked who on City staff will be qualified to inspect this stuff. Director Nielsen explained if it’s a matter of the dimensional requirements the Building Official will. Other things will be enforced on a complaint basis. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission chose to delete commercial kennels because they are not allowed in the City. The City does allow veterinary clinics with over night care and indoor kennels. He noted if there are State rules on this they will be adopted by reference in the Ordinance. Chair Geng asked if pot belly pigs are considered to be a swine. Director Nielsen explained under the draft Ordinance it would be considered a rural farm animal. Geng stated a lot of people in other parts of the country have pot belly pigs and they have rescue groups for them. Commissioner Hasek stated there are people who keep red tailed hawks and odd things like that. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the definition of wild animals specifically excludes birds. Director Nielsen stated he will make the revisions discussed. He noted that under Penalty he included reference to Chapter 104 General Penalty and Enforcement and any violation of this Ordinance would be a Class A Offence which carries a $100 fine. He asked the Commission if that seems fair. There was a response that it does. 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE Director Nielsen stated during a Council discussion about various licenses the City issues the topic of massage therapist licensing came up. Today the City licenses the individual therapist; not the business. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 8 of 10 explained a business owner who has quite a few therapists providing services at his location expressed concern to the City about what it costs the therapists to get a license. There is a $50 license fee and a $100 investigative fee. Council changed the license to be a twelve-month license versus a yearly license. For liquor sales and tobacco sales the license is for the business and if one of the business’ employees has a problem the business suffers. He stated he and Administrator Heck have been discussing if it would be more effective to have the massage therapy business licensed. The business owner would suffer the consequences and therefore they may pay closer attention to what the employee is doing. The owner could have their license suspended for 60 days and for the second offense the license could be revoked. Commissioner Garelick stated this would have to deal with how the therapists are classified. Are they independent contractors or employees? That would make a difference in how the business should be dealt with. Commissioner Hasek stated it’s irrelevant whether or not the therapist is either employed by or contracted by the business owner; the business will still suffer consequences. Commissioner Arnst asked if the rules apply to physicians’ assistants and dental hygienists in the City. Director Nielsen explained the City doesn’t require an individual license for someone who works in a doctor’s office. Arnst recommended the business owner be licensed and the owner held responsible for the people working for the business independent of their employment status. She stated from her vantage point message therapists are being stereotyped when they are finally being recognized as an important part of health care. It’s recognized as holistic medicine. She thinks it’s archaic. She thought it inappropriate to think there is more mischief going on in a message therapy setting than in a dentist’s office. Commissioner Garelick stated the City should not generalize what people are going to be doing. Commissioner Arnst stated she took offense with the implication that a message therapist will get into more mischief. Director Nielsen stated there has been a history of mischief in that industry; therefore, it’s not without reason. Administrator Heck stated Commissioner Arnst’s recommendation is similar to the way the City handles liquor and tobacco licensing and responsibilities. Those businesses are licensed and the business is held accountable for the actions of those working for them if they violate the law and/or license and both the business and the individual pay the consequences. He then stated the business owner should be accountable. Heck then stated there are several individuals in the City who practice message therapy out of their homes. They would have to apply for the business license. He explained the therapists have to go through a specific type of education and training, but he did not think they are licensed by the State of Minnesota. Commissioner Hasek asked if therapists who go to the client to provide services have to be licensed. Director Nielsen responded they do. Chair Geng stated he supported Commissioner Arnst’s recommended approach from an administrative perspective. It would hold the business owner responsible. It makes a lot of sense. Council Liaison Woodruff stated because this profession is not licensed by the State there should a requirement on the business operator to only employ or contract with people who have a certain set of credentials. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Garelick asked what the reasons are for denying a license after a background check has been done. Director Nielsen explained if they don’t have the required number of hours, the insurance, and one more primary reason. The City does not do a criminal background check on them. If the business were to be licensed the City would have a background check conducted to ensure they haven’t had any related crimes. Council Liaison Woodruff stated for a liquor license a criminal background check is requested. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought that would be a good idea. Operating a business is a privilege not a right in the City. Chair Geng asked if the City wants to provide for spot checks. Administrator Heck stated the Ordinance would have to have a provision that requires the business to keep certain records and that they are subject to inspections, and then authorized City personnel can spot check to determine if things are being done correctly. Director Nielsen stated he will draft an amendment to the City’s Message Licensing Ordinance. 4. SMITHTOWN CROSSING Director Nielsen stated he was pleased with the showing at the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment study informal neighborhood meeting. All comment sheets were taken by the attendees. Unfortunately, only one was returned and it’s almost illegible. The next step in the process is to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan regarding the redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing. Chair Geng suggested when the public hearing is publicized the City should encourage the residents look at the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study report either on line or at City Hall prior to coming to the public hearing. Commissioner Arnst asked if any plans have been made to contact those property owners in the surrounding area that have not been contacted. Director Nielsen responded that is on his radar. There was consensus to schedule the public hearing on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Comp Plan amendment for November 15, 2011. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Arnst asked Administrator Heck if he has spoken with the City Engineer about the striping on Smithtown Road. Heck responded he has not. Heck noted the Road was striped before he had a chance to talk to the Engineer about it. Heck stated he will make sure it goes back to being striped the way it was when it was originally striped before striping is done in 2012. It allowed room for a bike shoulder then. He noted the City does stripe the Road every year because the paint wears off quickly. Administrator Heck explained the City is applying for a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Local Trail Connections Program Grant to construct 9500 linear feet of paved trail along Smithtown Road from the city borders of Shorewood and Victoria to the LRT Trail. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 18 October 2011 Page 10 of 10 Director Nielsen stated this evening he handed out a revised Planning Commission Work Plan for the remainder of 2012. Commissioner Hasek asked what the status is of the tree survey. Director Nielsen responded the Building Official is working on it but he is not sure of the status. Nielsen stated he may ask Hasek’s firm for his assistance with this. 7. NEW BUSINESS None. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for November 1, 2011. Director Nielsen stated during its next meeting the Commission will review a third draft of City Code Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals. There is a public hearing scheduled for Dynamic Signs. There may be a discussion about the capacity on water towers for cellular antennas. There will be consideration of a variance request. Also, there will be draft amendment to the Message Therapist Licensing Ordinance. If time permits, best practices for the sustainability program will be reviewed. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 10, 2011, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He noted the City’s appreciation event is scheduled for December 9, 2011, and it will be held at the Southshore Community Center. • SLUC No report was given. • Other Council Liaisons were selected as followed: October 2011 Commissioner Davis November 2011 Commissioner Arnst December 2011 Commissioner Hutchins Director Nielsen was asked to email confirmation of this out to the Commissioners. 10. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Garelick seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 18 October 2011 at 9:30 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder