Loading...
02-21-12 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2012 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE GARELICK (Mar) ______ DAVIS (Feb) ______ ARNST (Open) ______ GENG (Jan) ______ HASEK (Open) ______ HUTCHINS (Apr) ______ CHARBONNET (Open) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8 February 2012  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING ALLOWABLE FRONT-YARD ENCROACHMENTS 2. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) – FINAL DRAFT 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – LIFE CYCLE HOUSING – ACCESSORY APARTMENTS 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 8. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Commissioner Garelick – Real Estate in the South Lake Area  9. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Davis, Garelick (arrived at 7:03 P.M.), Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: Commissioner Charbonnet APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hasek moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for February 8, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  January 17, 2012 Commissioner Hasek expressed concern that from his perspective the minutes on the portico length discussion did not contain enough detailed discussion to ensure Council would be well informed. He asked Director Nielsen to ensure Council will get enough information when he reviews the minutes. Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Garelick arrived at 7:03 P.M. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT – CHRISTMAS LAKE ESTATES Applicant: Eric Zehnder Location: 6040 Christmas Lake Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M. (which was continued from January 17, 2012), noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a February 13, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that during its January 17, 2012, meeting the Planning Commission discussed the Staff report dated January 10, 2012, regarding the preliminary plat for Christmas Lake Estates. The Planning Commission, after hearing public testimony, decided to continue the public hearing to this evening based on a number of concerns raised. The Commission also wanted an opportunity to see revised plans incorporating the revisions discussed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 2 of 12 th Nielsen reviewed how the concerns raised about the Staff report during the January 17 meeting have been resolved. 1. The applicant’s engineer provided calculations indicating that cut and fill for the project will not exceed 300 cubic yards (100 cubic yards per lot). The intent is to balance fill and grading on the site. Per Staff and Planning Commission requests the engineer also revised the grading plan to show a different illustrative house plan for Lot 2. The shallower illustrative design for the house now allows ample room for a deck or patio at the rear of the house. The illustrative house plans for the other two lots also now show decks at the back of those houses. 2. The applicant’s engineer has again provided storm water calculations based on leaving the culvert under the existing driveway to Lot 3. The previous plans had shown that culvert being eliminated (which is what Staff strongly recommends). The engineer has redone the calculations to reflect the elimination of the culvert. The City Engineer has indicated that the storm water calculations and the water table information provided by the applicant’s engineer do support the walkout elevations shown on the plans for the three houses. Earlier in the day the City Engineer received comments from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD concurs with Staff’s recommendation. It also recommends that if the Project disturbs more than 40 percent of the site or if in the end there is equal to or more than 50 percent hardcover there be additional requirements for the individual lots. Staff recommends the MCWD’s comments be included in the conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. It is clear is that runoff from the two new houses will not adversely affect the property to the south. 3. The applicant’s engineer revised the plans to include a 35-foot natural buffer and a 15-foot setback along the easterly side of the wetland, per the City’s requirements. 4. The original plans proposed using the existing sewer service for Lot 3 (which is served from a stub on Christmas Lake Road) to serve the new house that will be built on Lot 3. Doing so would require an easement across Lot 2; something the City Engineer recommends against. The plans have been revised again to show the service will be extended to the sewer on the west side of the plat. 5. The original plan showed the driveway for Lot 3 extending into the wetland setback. The City Ordinance does allow that even though it may not be what the City prefers. The plan has been revised to show the proposed driveway being moved slightly to the west so as to avoid the wetland setback area. This will require the removal of a tree. Nielsen noted the City has received a follow-up letter from the owners of the 21355 Christmas Lane property which is located to the south of the subject property. They questioned if the City has taken into consideration the virgin soil which has been on the subject property for forty plus years and asked a number of other environment related questions. He explained that the Shorewood development regulations have attempted to address the issues that were raised. The minimum lot size for lots in the R- 1A/S zoning district is 40,000 square-feet (just under one acre in size) and that is among the largest in the area. The City has had wetland requirements before most cities had them and dating back to the early 1970s. More recently the City has adopted wetland buffers and setback requirements that exceed those of the local watershed districts. The State requires shoreland management restrictions apply to any property that is within 1,000 feet of a water body. On a non riparian piece of property the hardcover requirement is CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 3 of 12 25 percent maximum. The City has adopted the 25 percent hardcover maximum for properties located in the Shoreland District. For non shoreland properties the City has adopted a 33 percent maximum hardcover requirement for properties outside of that District. Staff recommends the preliminary plat as revised be approved subject to the recommendations made in the Staff report and incorporating the MCWD’s comments into the conditions. Chair Geng asked the applicant Eric Zehnder, President of Zehnder Homes, Inc., if he had anything he wanted to add. Mr. Zehnder responded he is willing to entertain any questions the Planning Commission may have and he reminded the Commission that it is a conforming plat. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. Commissioner Hasek thanked the applicant for making the revisions to the plan. He also thanked other property owners for their comments. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the preliminary plat for Christmas Lake Estates subject to Staff recommendations and the comments submitted by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated February 7, 2012. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – LOT WIDTH/AREA VARIANCE AND LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Applicant: Mike and Elizabeth Cannon Location: 28170 / 28180 Woodside Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M., to consider a lot width and area variance and a lot line rearrangement for the properties located at 28170 / 28180 Woodside Road. The applicants are Mike and Elizabeth Cannon. He stated the same procedures followed in the previous Public Hearing will be adhered to again. He explained if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a February 27, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that Mike and Elizabeth Cannon own the property at 28170 Woodside Road. They are proposing to convey a small portion of that lot to the limited liability corporation that owns the lot to the south at 28180 Woodside Road. Both lots are somewhat substandard in terms of width for the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district in which they are located. Nielsen explained the R-1A/S zoning district requires lots to have 40,000 square feet in area and 120 feet of width. The properties also have to comply with shoreland restrictions on their westerly border. The City’s zoning regulations require a substandard lot to meet at least 70 percent of the width and area requirements of the zoning district in which the lot is located in order for it to be considered buildable. The southerly lot is thirteen feet too narrow to comply. The width is measured 50 feet back from the street right of way (ROW). Conveying the small triangle in the southeast corner of the 28170 property to the 28180 property will equalize the width of the two lots and bring both of them into compliance with City’s zoning provisions relative to nonconforming lots. Because the width of the 28170 will be made slightly narrower the applicants have requested a width/area variance as well for this property. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 4 of 12 Nielsen stated that in response to a request from Staff the applicants have indicated they will provide 17 feet of additional ROW along Woodside Road. Staff has also advised the applicant that they must provide drainage and utility easements; 10 feet around both of the lots. Both of those are reflected on the proposed division / combination survey drawing submitted by the applicants. Nielsen explained that after the division/combination is complete both lots will satisfy the 70-percent width and area requirements. Nielsen noted this request conforms to the new variance standard of “practical difficulties” and how it meets the standard is listed in the Staff report dated January 31, 2012. The 28180 lot will not need a variance to be built on. It will simply have to go through the conditional use permit (C.U.P.) process when it is built on. Nielsen stated there are a number of City subdivision requirements that must be met before the division and combination can be approved. They are as follows. 1. The applicant’s attorney must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for the property for review by the City Attorney. This is because of the ROW and drainage and utility easements that are being dedicated. 2. The applicant’s surveyor must provide legal descriptions for the drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each of the lots, and for the 17 feet of right-of-way abutting the southerly lot. 3. From the legal descriptions in item 2 above, the applicant’s attorney must prepare deeds in favor of the City. 4. Once the deeds are received by the City, the application will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. 5. Once the City Council has approved the application the applicant must record the resolution approving the division and combination within 30 days of the Council’s approval. Nielsen noted Staff recommends approval of the division, combination and variance subject to those five conditions. Chair Geng asked if the applicants have anything they would like to say about their request. Mike Cannon stated he had nothing to add to Director Nielsen’s comments. He then stated he is willing to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Cannon if their plan is to replace the house on the 28170 property. Mr. Cannon stated that is not their plan at this time. They may eventually decide to do that or if they sell that property the new owner may decide to replace the house. Mr. Cannon noted the house on that property is relatively old. Commissioner Davis explained that Robert and Lindy Hensley, owners of the 28110 Woodside Road property, have expressed concern in a letter to the City that the properties would continue to share a common driveway. She noted she shares the same concern. Mr. Cannon stated the plan is to have a shared driveway agreement between the owners of both properties. He then stated he believes there is an easement that exists that outlines a shared driveway agreement for the two properties. The purchase CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 5 of 12 agreement between the 28170 and 28180 property owners will protect the driveway rights of the 28170 property to cross the 28180 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. Commissioner Hutchins stated when a C.U.P. to build on the 28180 property is requested he asked if it will have to include a maintenance agreement for the shared driveway. Director Nielsen responded it will. Director Nielsen noted the common driveway for the two lots is located primarily on the 28180 property so it adversely affects the hardcover for that lot. He stated it is to the benefit of the owners of both properties to have as much shared driveway as possible so both get the maximum hardcover they can possibly get. The owners of each property have a right to have their own driveway. Commissioner Hutchins stated with regard to the setback from Lake Minnetonka he thought the house on the 28180 property will end up being located closer to the Lake than the house on the 28170 property. Director Nielsen stated it will likely be somewhat closer. Nielsen noted in addition to the lake setback requirement there is a bluff setback requirement. The bluff setback will require the house to be farther back from the Lake than the lake setback would. The house has to be 20 feet back from the top of the bluff. Hutchins stated that creates the need for the driveway to go farther. Commissioner Hasek asked if the City has a regulation that requires a new house on the 28180 property to be built to line up with the houses on the two abutting properties. Director Nielsen responded the City does not. Hasek stated this request makes sense to him. He then stated he assumes any proposed house for the 28180 property will be large and he asked if that will preclude the new property owners from asking for any type of variance. Nielsen stated the property owners would have the right to apply for any type of variance. The approval of the current request eliminates the need for a lot-width variance. Hasek asked if there is any provision in the City’s Ordinance to shift some of the hardcover restriction to the 28170 property because there is a common driveway that is located primarily on the 28180 property. Nielsen stated there is not. Nielsen explained there are ways the owners of the 28180 property could construct a driveway as close to their property line as possible. Nielsen stated Staff will have to make sure the 28180 property meets the hardcover requirements. Hasek stated he would like to see aerial photographs of the property and topography. Hasek noted that he will not support recommending approval of a lot of special conditions when the C.U.P. request is considered. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision/combination and lot width/area variance for Mike and Elizabeth Cannon, 28170 and 28180 Woodside Road, subject to Staff recommendations. Commissioner Garelick stated most of the lots the City is dealing with at this time are lots with older houses on them. He asked how much undeveloped land there is in the City. Director Nielsen responded he thought it was approximately five percent. Nielsen noted that much of what is happening is the redevelopment of lots. Chair Geng stated it’s his recollection that the City is 95 percent developed. Garelick stated he assumes there are sufficient guidelines for how the older developed lots can be redeveloped. Nielsen stated the 70 percent rule is intended to address older lots of records that were platted or subdivided long before the current rules were adopted. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:39 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 6 of 12 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the fourth draft of an amendment to Shorewood’s Municipal Code Chapter 704 that will establish rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. This fourth draft includes the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission during its December 6, 2011 meeting. Nielsen explained that after the discussion about this item during that meeting there were two main items that still needed to be addressed. The first item was how many urban farm animals should be allowed. When Bob Lies, with EggPlant Urban Farm Company, spoke to the Commission during its October 18, 2011, meeting he indicated that four laying chickens would adequately provide eggs for a typical family. Mr. Lies noted that laying chickens do not produce eggs their entire life. Based on Commission discussion Staff is now recommending increasing the number of animals from four (which was in the first draft of the Ordinance) to either six or eight. Doing so would allow a family raising its own chickens to at least have four chickens that produce eggs and an additional two or four that do not. The second item was what, if any, grandfather rights should be included. Staff recommends all properties be subject to the permit requirements. Anyone that currently has more animals than currently allowed would simply not replace dead animals in excess of the maximum number allowed. Chair Geng stated he thought the fourth draft of the Ordinance was quite good. He recommended the maximum number of animals allowed be six. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought six is a reasonable number. Commissioner Davis stated the Ordinance considers rabbits as urban farm animals. She noted rabbits have a very rapid reproductive rate. Commissioner Garelick asked what the City’s policy is with regard to coyotes. Director Nielsen explained the City takes reports on sightings of coyotes and reports on activities between coyotes and pets. Nielsen stated that the topic of coyotes will likely be discussed when the deer management program is discussed the next time. Nielsen noted a member of Metro Bowhunters Resources Base, the bowhunters who do the actual deer harvesting, asked if the City wanted them to harvest coyotes as well during the 2011 deer harvesting effort. The position was to harvest only deer in 2011. Nielsen stated the coyote population is growing. Commissioner Hutchins stated if the decision is made to allow up to six chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, guinea hens, and rabbits he asked if the maximum number of bee hives shall remain at four. Commissioner Davis commented that one bee hive produces a lot of honey and stated that she thought four hives would be very generous. Commissioner Hasek commented the property owner behind his property had two hives and that was all he could manage. There was Planning Commission consensus to leave the maximum number of bee hives at four and increase the number to six for chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, guinea hens, and rabbits. There was also consensus to include in the Ordinance a stipulation that anyone who currently has more animals than allowed by the Ordinance could not replace animals in excess of the maximum number allowed. Director Nielsen clarified the grandfathering applies strictly to the number of animals being in excess of the maximum number allowed in the Ordinance. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the fourth draft of an amendment to the Shorewood Municipal Code establishing rules for the keeping of farm and other animals subject to CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 7 of 12 changing Section 704.09 Subd. 2.h to read “The number of chicken, ducks, geese, turkeys, guinea hens, or rabbits shall not exceed six (6). Anyone who currently has more animals than allowed by the Ordinance could not replace animals in excess of the maximum number allowed.” Motion passed 6/0. SMITHTOWN CROSSING Commissioner Davis stated it was her recollection that the Planning Commission wanted to have a work session devoted to the topic of additional discussion about the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study). Director Nielsen stated the minutes from the December 6, 2011, meeting reflect that. Nielsen noted that he did not allow for that in the Commissions 2012 work program. He asked for direction from the Planning Commission regarding some of the questions raised during the public testimony portion of the public hearing held on this topic during that meeting. He stated if the Commission agrees with the list of guiding principles he proposed during that meeting to be included in the vision statement he recommends that he rewrite the vision statement prior to the next discussion about Smithtown Crossing. Commissioner Garelick commented that he noticed there is another property, a vacant lot, for sale in the Study area. He asked if any one knows what the asking price is. Director Nielsen stated the American Legion has one of its properties located in the Study area up for sale and he thought the asking price is $245,000. Nielsen noted that lot does have commercial zoning. Garelick asked how there can be a unified redevelopment of the Study area when individual properties are being put up for sale. Nielsen stated the City purchased the property at the west end of the Study area when it went on the market. The City was advised by individuals in the real estate business that the asking price was probably not going to go any lower. Nielsen then stated he assumes the Legion will use the money it would get from the sale of its property for the construction of a new building. Nielsen stated is it somewhat bothersome that particular property is up for sale based on its commonality with other properties in the Study area. Nielsen commented there has been interest expressed for that for-sale lot and the lot with a house on it next door to it as well as the City-owned property. Nielsen commented that the City can’t purchase each individual property in the Study area as they come on the market. Commissioner Hasek stated from his vantage point one of the good things that could come out of the City purchasing the piece of property that it did is it could be the swing property between residential and commercial. Director Nielsen noted that the gas station property at the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection is up for sale. He explained the Legion property that is for sale is close to 100 feet wide. But, under the current zoning because it is the last commercial lot in that area one half of the lot will be for a 50-foot setback between commercial use and residential development. He noted the intent is to stick with the City’s regular zoning if the properties in the Study area are redeveloped individually. He stated the for-sale property would be more valuable if it was combined with another property. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Nielsen explained the setback on the other side of that property is 10 feet. Director Nielsen stated currently the Planning Commission doesn’t have a second meeting scheduled for th March. He asked if March 20 would work for having a study session on Smithtown Crossing. He stated thth either the March 6 Commission meeting or a March 20 work session will be devoted to discussing Smithtown Crossing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 8 of 12 Nielsen asked the Commissioners if they have any input on the guiding principles. If there is none he is going to rewrite the vision statement before the next discussion. Commissioner Hutchins stated he thought the guiding principles addressed many of the concerns that were raised about the Study during the public hearing. Such as concerns about the west-end buffer, how the redevelopment would fit in with the surrounding area (in particular Gideon Glen), the size of structures, and circulation. Commissioner Hasek expressed his agreement with Hutchins perspective. Director Nielsen stated he will rewrite the vision statement to reflect the guiding principles. Chair Geng stated that prior to the next discussion on this topic he suggested the Commissioners and Staff give some thought to how the feedback on the Study should be summarized in the Study Report. Commissioner Davis suggested it be in bullet point form so it is easy to read. Director Nielsen stated it could be an appendix in the back of the Study Report. Nielsen noted a resident’s suggestion to include a th summary of recommendations was discussed during the Commission’s December 6 meeting and he suggested that summary be added to the Report. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if he wanted anything from the Commissioners prior to that work session. Nielsen stated he can’t think of anything at the moment. Director Nielsen recommended the Commission discuss each individual suggestion made and concern expressed by residents. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought the most difficult thing will be to take into consideration the desires of all the City’s residents and not just those near the Study area. The redevelopment of the Study area has to consider future generations and an aging population in the City. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Commission could be provided with a copy of the revised Study Report at least a week before it is going to discuss it. Director Nielsen stated he will do that. 4. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING Director Nielsen stated he had attended a seminar about Communities of a Lifetime during the latter part of 2011. He then wrote a memorandum dated December 1, 2011, about Communities of a Lifetime and included with it some attachments regarding life-cycle housing. The Planning Commission was scheduled to discuss the topic during its December 6, 2011, meeting but there was not time to do that. He explained one topic discussed during the seminar was the goal to try to help keep people in their homes as long as they want to continue to live there. If residents can’t continue to live in their homes then there should at least be the opportunity to continue to live in their community. Nielsen noted the City currently has two senior housing projects with both of them being cottage-style, independent living arrangements. There is no assisted living facility or care facility in the City. He also noted that during its March 12, 2012, meeting Council is going to consider an amendment to the City Code which has been recommended by the Planning Commission. Part of that amendment will allow ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons to encroach into any required front, side or rear setback subject to certain regulations. That will help the elderly with access to buildings and it might help them be able to remain in their homes a little longer. Nielsen stated he has identified four topics related to life-cycle housing. The first topic is the review of the City’s existing zoning requirements relative to elderly housing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 9 of 12 Nielsen explained the second topic is accessory apartments. It’s his recollection that the Planning Commission thought accessory apartments is an important component of elderly housing. Either allowing families to have their elderly relatives move in to a separate living area in their home or having elderly parents allow their children to move in to a separate living area in their home. He recommended taking a cautious approach to accessory apartments because they can change the character of a neighborhood by allowing, for example, more than one dwelling on a lot. He stated he thought it prudent at the beginning to limit the use of accessory apartments to family members and to attached quarters. There should also be a residential use agreement. Adequate parking for these types of uses also needs to be addressed. He stated from his vantage point a conditional use process may be the best approach to take for allowing accessory apartments. Nielsen then explained the third topic is barriers to seniors staying in their homes. He noted the City’s Ordinance does not distinguish between the various types of elderly housing. People were aware of that when the current code was written. When it was written people who deal with elderly housing advised Staff that there were three main categories – independent living, assisted living and care facilities. He suggested they be distinguished with respect to at least density. He explained he did not think density was an appropriate measure for assisted living or care facilities. The concerns such as traffic about density don’t apply to them. Commissioner Hutchins noted that many people in assisted living facilities still drive. Nielsen explained if the City requires 1.5 parking spaces for independent living the requirement for assisted living will likely be less than that. Nielsen stated there is staff parking needs at assisted living facilities. Nielsen went on to explain there are things in the City Ordinance, copies of which are included in the meeting packet, that need to be discussed. He suggested the definition of elderly housing be reviewed to ensure it’s consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act with respect to housing for older persons. He explained the current purpose of the Elderly Housing section limits the purpose to housing within residential zoning districts. He suggested addressing nonresidential districts and mixed-use type districts as well. The same applies to conditional use; there is nothing in there about the commercial districts or mixed-use districts. The City stipulates the minimum site size for elderly housing projects shall be three acres. That is okay for cottage-style elderly housing. That may not be appropriate for mixed-use projects provided the mixed-use district is three acres in size. Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains census data for 2010, 2000 and 1990 showing population by age groups and gender in the City. He noted there was an influx of new people into City when development increased during the 1990s. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen stated there are population projections for the City for the next ten years but they are not specific to age groups. Hasek commented based on the census data people are living longer now. Director Nielsen stated there are a number of meetings scheduled for the Planning Commission to discuss life-cycle housing. He has been entertaining having Rick Fenske, a senior housing developer, come again to speak to the Commission about elderly housing and the aging population. [Mr. Fenske gave a similar presentation during a July 1, 2008, Planning Commission meeting and the minutes for that meeting detail the presentation.] He explained the reason he did not ask Mr. Fenske to speak to the Commission in 2011 is that he was considering doing a project in the City. He asked the Commission if it would be interested in having a presentation by Mr. Fenske. Commissioner Hasek stated he would be interested in such a presentation and he asked if there is a way the presentation could be made available to the residents. He commented he isn’t sure there is a good CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 10 of 12 understanding of the changes occurring with the City’s population and that there is a desire on the part of elderly residents to stay in the community. Director Nielsen stated it may be possible to video record that presentation and then put it on the City’s website for viewing. Council Liaison Hotvet stated she thought that would be a great idea. She then stated it could be worthwhile to talk about why younger people aren’t moving into the City. She stated she doesn’t think there is a common understanding of what affordable housing is and that housing in the City is very expensive. Director Nielsen stated the high price of housing in the City is driven by the life style chosen for the City. The City requires large lots and low-density single family developments. Starter families can not afford to buy homes in the City. Council Liaison Hotvet stated it may be prudent to talk about what a new housing market should look like. Chair Geng stated he could support opening up a presentation like that to the residents, noting it would limit the Planning Commission’s ability to focus on anything else that evening. Commissioner Arnst suggested it be an ongoing education series. Articles could be published in the City’s newsletter and information could be placed on the City’s website. She noted the walk score for the City is very low. It’s not easy to safely walk to places in the City. She noted residents have done it to themselves in Shorewood. She stated people want to put their children in a stroller and safely walk to a coffee shop or a friend’s home. Younger people want smaller homes and they don’t have the same desire to be married to their property like their parents are. They don’t want to have to do a lot of maintenance to their property. Commissioner Garelick stated in the City of Edina there is a strong push towards distinguishable neighborhoods. Shorewood doesn’t have neighborhoods. It’s just a big area. He questioned if a similar type concept could be considered for the City. Commissioner Davis stated there is enough to discuss about life-cycle housing for more than just a work session. It’s an event. Director Nielsen stated this year there will be another government training session. He suggested it may make some sense to dedicate a portion of the afternoon to this topic. Nielsen stated he will check into the feasibility of doing that. Commissioner Arnst stated it’s important to her to create opportunities for residents to remain in their homes when they grow older. One way is to accommodate their young children moving back home. She cautioned against the limiting the focus of accessory space in homes to the elderly. It should be for all family members. She stated allowing for accessory space in homes is the easiest thing for the City to do. It will not take public dollars to do that. Accessory space should be at the top of the list of things to move forward with. Chair Geng agreed that the focus should not be limited to the elderly. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 11 of 12 Commissioner Hasek reiterated the need to take additional parking needs into consideration when children move back in with their parents for a period of time. Director Nielsen stated the City receives complaints often about too many cars being parked on residential streets for residents on one property. Hasek stated there will be a need to educate residents on the reasons for there being a need to accommodate multiple families living in a single-family home for a while even if it means there will be more vehicles to park on or near the residential properties. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has a discussion scheduled for April on life-cycle housing. He will prepare materials on accessory apartments for that discussion. Chair Geng suggested that be recorded and made available on the City’s website. Nielsen stated he will also coordinate having a life- cycle housing discussion during the one-day government training session. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Hasek stated he wanted to talk about coyotes in the City. He explained that four of the last five evenings he has been woken up by noises from coyotes that had to have been within 200 feet of his home. Their sound goes from a howl to what sounds like a scream. There is more than one of them. After enough lights have been turned on in homes in the neighborhood the coyotes disperse. He expressed concern about what the coyotes could eventually do. They could take pets, chickens and so forth and they could eventually be a danger to children. The more animals and pets people have outside the greater the attraction for coyotes. He stated coyotes have been sighted throughout the metropolitan area. He then stated it is time to do something about controlling the population of coyotes. Director Nielsen noted the coyotes do take deer out. Administrator Heck stated there is no documented evidence of a coyote attacking a human being. They do take small animals such as squirrels, rabbits, rats and so forth. Commissioner Arnst stated coyotes rarely take deer unless it is a fawn or a sick deer. She then thanked the City for implementing an ordinance about feeding deer because it appears to have done some good. Feeders she has been aware of do not appear to be being used. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a public hearing slated for the February 21, 2012, Planning Commission meeting about zoning encroachments. The Planning Commission has requested Nielsen provide them with a final version of the draft of an amendment to Shorewood’s Municipal Code Chapter 704 that will establish rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. Nielsen stated he will prepare materials on accessory apartments, one component of the ongoing life-cycle housing discussion, for discussion during that meeting. Nielsen then stated Commissioner Garelick has requested 10 minutes of time to discuss the state of real estate in the South Lake area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 12 of 12 Nielsen noted there is a joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission scheduled for 6:00 st P.M. on February 21. Administrator Heck asked the Commission what topics it would like to address with Council. Chair Geng stated during the January 23, 2012, Council meeting he attended as the Planning Commission liaison he informed Council that the Commission would like some feedback on its 2012 work program during that meeting. Geng asked if there are other topics Commissioners want to discuss. Commissioner Hutchins suggested asking Council to share any feedback Council has received about the Smithtown Crossing Study. Hutchins then stated he assumed food would be provided because of the start time. Director Nielsen stated he will make bratwurst for the Commissioners. Commissioner Hasek asked if Council has ever responded in general to how it believes this Planning Commission is functioning. He then asked how the Commission would know if it is on task for doing its job. Director Nielsen responded that is part of the reason for the joint meeting. Nielsen then stated for individual things considered he knows that the Commission gets high praise for its work. Director Nielsen explained that a while back changes were made to ensure that if Council goes against the Planning Commission’s recommendation then the council liaison to the Commission would explain the rationale for doing that during a Commission meeting. Nielsen stated it is apparent to him that Council has a tremendous amount of respect for what the Commission does because Council continues to send items to the Commission for discussion and recommendation that aren’t necessarily planning items. Nielsen noted that the Council does not just rubberstamp items recommended for approval. Chair Geng stated Council will have the opportunity to convey if the Planning Commission’s work plan priorities are in line with what its priorities are for the Commission. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Chair Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 23, 2012, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC No report was given. • Other None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 8, 2012, at 8:40 P.M. Motion passed 6/0 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -€3927 - (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 ® www.d.shorewood.mn.us - cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 17 February 2012 RE: Zoning Code Amendment — Allowable Front Yard Encroachments FILE NO. Zoning (Section 1201.03) Attached is the public hearing draft of the ordinance amendment that allows porticos to encroach into front yard setbacks. Per the Planning Commission's direction we have increased the allowable width of the encroachment to fifty percent of the front silhouette of the home. Cc: Laura Hotvet Brian Heck Tim Keane f% % 1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -D-R-A-F-T- CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO ALLOWABLE FRONT YARD ENCROACHMENTS Section 1 . City Code Section 1201.02 is hereby amended to include: PORTICO. “A covered walkway in the form of a roof supported by columns or pillars, usually attached to a building, and leading to an entrance of the building.” Section 2 .City CodeSection 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) is amended to read: “(2) For a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling in any residential zoning district, ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act may encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. For a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to 19 May 1986: (a) A one story enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. (b) A one story open portico may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet, provided: (i) The length of the portico shall not exceed fifty percent of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and (ii) This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60 percent open.” Section 3 . That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this ____ day of ____________2012. CHRISTINE LIZÉE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRIAN HECK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- CITY OF SHOREWOOD i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 16 February 2012 RE: Farm and Other Animals Ordinance — Fifth Draft FILE NO. City Code (Title 700) Attached (Exhibit A) is the fifth draft of the ordinance amendment regulating farm and other animals (but not dogs). The latest two revisions appear on page 10 in purple type. We have also attached a (hopefully) final draft so you can see it in the form in which it will be published. If there are any questions relative to this item, please feel free to contact me prior to the meeting. Cc: Laura Hotvet Brian Heck Tim Keane ffs ���® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Chapter 704 FARM AND OTHER ANIMALS 704.01 PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish regulations and controls regarding the keeping of animals other than domestic pets such as dogs and cats, within the city limits of the City of Shorewood. 704.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. AUTHORIZED CITY PERSONNEL. The Chief of Police, the health authority, their designees, and other personnel assisting in the enforcement of this chapter. RURAL FARM ANIMAL. Cattle, mules, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, ostriches, emus, and including, but not limited to, other animals typically maintained in a farm setting but not in an urban setting. URBAN FARM ANIMAL. Ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens, bees, and rabbits. MALTREATED ANIMAL. An animal that has not been given adequate food, water, or proper shelter from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and with humane care and treatment, or that has been subjected to the conduct prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 343.21. NUISANCE ANIMAL. An animal, conditions caused by an animal, or the improper care and maintenance of an animal that result in running at large, offensive odor, excessive noise or damage to property, so as to disturb the rights of or threaten the safety of a member of the . general public, or interfereswith the ordinary use and enjoyment of their property OWNER. A person owning, keeping, harboring or acting as custodian of an animal. All adult occupants of the property where the animal resides or is kept are considered an owner or owners. PERSON. An individual, firm, partnership, or corporation. PREMISES. A building, structure, shelter, or land where an animal is kept or confined. UNDER RESTRAINT An animal being within a private motor vehicle of a person, owning, harboring or keeping the animal; or controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in length. VETERINARY HOSPITAL. A place for the treatment, hospitalization, surgery, care and boarding of animals and birds, under the direction of one or more licensed veterinarians. Exhibit B WILD ANIMAL. Any of the following: a.Front-fanged venomous snakes, including the viperidae and elapidae families of snakes, such as rattlesnakes and cobras; b. Snakes over 8 feet in length; c. Reptiles that have the physical ability as an adult to cause substantial bodily injury as defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a, to humans and/or domestic animals, such as python snakes and crocodilians; d. Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies; e. Mammals that as a breed are considered wild by nature because of breeding, history, character, habit, or disposition; and f. Mammals that have at least 25 percent of their heritage from mammals specified in subparagraph e, above. g. Specifically, such animals as a wolf, fox, skunk, raccoon, mink, bobcat, deer, and monkey, but not including a fish, bird, ferret, hamster, or gerbil. 704.03 ENFORCEMENT. The Chief of Police or designees will enforce the provisions of this chapter, with the assistance of other personnel when appropriate. 704.04 RIGHT OF ENTRY. Authorized City personnel have the right to enter upon a premises at reasonable times for the purpose of discharging their duties imposed by this chapter when there is reasonable belief that a violation of this chapter has been committed. 704.05 IMPOUNDING OF ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Seizure and impoundment. Authorized city personnel may seize and impound an animal found to be in violation of this chapter. These personnel may enter onto private property to seize and impound animals when: a.They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the animal's health, safety or welfare; b. They have a reasonable and immediate concern for the health and safety of human beings or other animals as a result of the animal's continued presence on the property; or 2 c. They have reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred or is occurring and that seizure is necessary to prevent further violation, but only after a reasonable effort has been made to contact an occupant of the property. Subd. 2. Interference. A person must not interfere with authorized city personnel impounding an animal, nor refuse to surrender an animal to these personnel. Subd. 3. Cost of impoundment. The animal owner is responsible for costs for the impounding and housing of an impounded animal. 704.06 HEALTH AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. Subd. 1. Health standards. The owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the following standards. a.An animal kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure must be provided with adequate shelter and bedding to protect it from the sun, rain, snow, and temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. b. The shelter must include a moisture proof and windproof structure of suitable size to allow the animal to stand in an upright position and to lie down stretched out so that no part of its body need touch the sides of the structure. The structure must be made of durable material sufficient to allow retention of body heat with a solid floor raised at least two inches from the ground and an entrance covered by a flexible windproof material or self-closing swinging door. The structure must be provided with sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings, blankets or the equivalent to provide insulation and protection against cold and dampness and to promote retention of body heat. The structure must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. c. In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs a. and b., an animal may be provided with access to a barn with a sufficient quantity of loose hay or bedding and protection against cold and dampness. d. If an animal is confined by a chain, the chain must be so attached that it cannot become entangled with the chains of other animals or other objects. A chain must be of a size adequate to restrain the animal involved and must be attached to the animal by means of a well fitted collar. The collar must be large enough to allow free breathing but small enough to avoid being easily pulled over the animal's head. A chain must be at least three times the length of the animal as measured from the tip of his nose to the base of his tail. e. An animal must be provided with sufficient food and water to meet necessary nutritional requirements. 3 f. 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. Subd. 2. Maintenance standards. An owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the standards below. An action to enforce the provisions of this chapter shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 104 of this Code. a.An owner must maintain an animal and the area where it is kept so that no odor that offends the senses of a reasonable person is detected, for more than one day, off the property where the animal is kept. b. An owner must maintain the property where the animal is kept so that there is no erosion, and no drainage of water contaminated by the animal, onto adjacent properties or into public waters or wetlands. c. An owner must manage the feces and other bodily wastes from the animal in a timely and sanitary manner that prevents health risks and prevents odors that are prohibited under paragraph a. above. d. All feed kept for animals shall be stored in animal-proof, galvanized containers. Subd. 3. Veterinary clinic with indoor overnight care and indoor kennels. In addition to the standards established under Subd. 1. above, veterinary clinics with indoor care and indoor kennels, where allowed by zoning, must comply with Minnesota Rules Chapter 9100, as may be amended. 704.07 WILD ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Wild animals prohibited. A person must not keep, own, harbor, or otherwise possess a wild animal within the city, except as provided in Subd. 2. below. Subd. 2. Wild animals allowed. Wild animals may be brought into the city for the purpose of entertainment, education, or display only by the following: a. A zoo operated by a governmental agency or a tax-exempt, non-profit corporation; b. The department of natural resources; c. Other similar public educational or charitable organization; 4 d. A circus; or e. A City-licensed pet shop. An organization listed above may bring a wild animal or animals into the city under this subdivision only if the organization can and does comply with the standards contained in Subd. 3. below. No organization covered by this subdivision may have wild animals within the city on more than 7 days in a consecutive 12-month period, except that an organization listed above that has a wild animal within the city on the effective date of this section may continue to keep that animal as long as it lives if the organization obtains a permit from the City and complies with the standards specified in Subd. 3. below. Subd. 3. Standards for keeping of wild animals. An organization that has a wild animal must comply with the following standards at all times that it possesses a wild animal within the city. a. A non-governmental organization must have liability insurance to cover potential personal injury or property damage caused by the animal(s), in an amount of at least $300,000 per person per occurrence. b. The animal(s) must be kept in a locked cage or other secure enclosure at all times when the public is allowed to be near them. c. The cage or enclosure must be constructed of sufficient materials so that a person, including a child, cannot put a finger, hand, or another portion of the body into the cage or enclosure so that the animal(s) could touch it. Alternatively, structural barriers may be used to keep the public away from the cage or enclosure. d. Only personnel with adequate training or experience in handling wild animals may have contact with the animal(s) while in the city. e. The animal(s) must be transported to the display location in the city in a secure enclosure sufficient to prohibit potential contact with humans or other animals, except the personnel identified under subparagraph (d) above. f. No sale of a wild animal(s) may occur, nor may orders for the sale of wild animals be taken. g. The display location must be inspected by authorized City personnel before the wild animal(s) may be brought into the city. h. Authorized City personnel must be allowed to periodically inspect the display location during reasonable hours while the animal(s) is/are in the city. 5 i.If a wild animal bites a person, the animal must be forfeited immediately to authorized City personnel for rabies testing. 704.08 FORFEITURE OF ANIMAL OWNERSHIP RIGHTS. Subd. 1. Forfeiture of rights. The ownership rights of a person owning the following types of animals may be forfeited to the City pursuant to the procedure in this section: a. A public nuisance animal; b. A wild animal; and c. A maltreated animal. In addition, the ownership rights with respect to other animals owned by the same owner may be forfeited if he/she has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to properly care for or control such animals in order to prevent any of them from becoming a public nuisance animal or a maltreated animal. Subd. 2. Notice. Authorized City personnel must notify the owner or apparent owner of the animal sought to be forfeited that the city intends to forfeit his/her ownership rights. The notice must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The notice must be in writing and state the reasons why forfeiture is sought, including a summary of applicable incidents. The notice must state that the owner has a right, within 10 days after receiving the notice, to request a hearing before a Hearing Officer appointed under City Code Chapter 104. The request for a hearing must be in writing and must state the reason or reasons for the request. A failure to request the hearing will constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the notice, and the animal will be deemed forfeited to the City. Subd. 3. Findings of fact. If the owner requests a hearing, the hearing will be held in accordance with City Code Chapter 104. The Hearing Officer must make written findings of fact and reach a conclusion whether the allegations are true and whether the animal will be forfeited to the City. The findings and conclusions must be made within 10 working days after the hearing and must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The decision of the Hearing Officer is final but may be appealed by a writ of certiorari to the District Court. Subd. 4. Animal confinement. After receiving the forfeiture notice and during the forfeiture proceedings, the owner must keep the subject animal confined within his/her home or within a secure covered enclosure. If the owner fails to do so, or if there is an immediate threat to public health or safety or to the animal's health or safety, authorized City personnel may immediately impound the animal and keep it at the impound facility at the owner’s expense until a forfeiture determination has been made. 6 Subd. 5. Forfeiture. If the animal is deemed or ordered forfeited, the owner must immediately give the animal to authorized City personnel, and a failure or refusal to do so is a misdemeanor. Authorized City personnel may use reasonable force and go onto private property to take the animal into custody. Subd. 6. Disposition of forfeited animal. Authorized City personnel will determine on a case by case basis whether forfeited animals are destroyed or given to new owners who will adequately care for and control the animal. 704.09 FARM ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Rural farm animals. Unless otherwise provided for, a person shall not keep, own, harbor, or otherwise possess a rural farm animal within the city. Subd. 2. Urban farm animals. A person may own, keep, harbor, or otherwise possess urban farm animals within the city in accordance with the provisions of this section. a.An urban farm animal may only be kept in the buildable area of the rear yard of the property, as defined by the Zoning Code. b. An urban farm animal that is kept outside must be provided a shelter structure of appropriate size, that is accessible to the animal at all times as provided in section 704.06 Subd. 1. of this chapter. The shelter structure and confinement areas shall be adequately screened to the 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. c. The urban farm animal must be contained on the property by the use of a fence or other appropriate containment device or structure. d. Roosters are not allowed. e. An urban farm animal must not be kept on residentially-zoned property if it is being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially-zoned property. f. The ground or floor of the area where an urban farm animal is kept must be covered with vegetation, concrete, or other surface approved by the Shorewood Planning Department, so that it can be, and is, sufficiently maintained to adequately dissipate offensive odors, in compliance with section 704.06, Subd. 2. a. and c. of this chapter. g. The number of chickens, ducks, geese, turkey, guinea hens, or rabbits shall not exceed six (6). h. The number of bee hives shall not exceed four (4). 7 i. Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h. above, shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations. Permit issuance; fees. i. (1) No urban farm animal may be kept in the City of Shorewood until a permit to do so has been approved by the Zoning Administrator and issued by the office of the Building Official. No permit shall be granted until the necessary fee has been paid and until the Building Official or staff representative has made an inspection of the property and has ascertained that the premises comply with all requirements of this chapter. Detailed plans and specifications, accurate and drawn to scale, must be submitted with the application including, but not limited to the following: (a) Site plan showing the location and setbacks of existing and proposed buildings, fences and structures on the subject property. (b) Architectural plans showing floor plans, building elevations and dimensions. (c) Landscaping plan showing how the shelter structure and confinement areas will be screened from adjoining properties. (2) The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of this chapter shall provide with the application the written consent of 75 percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within 150 feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant’s property lines are 150 feet or more from any structure. Where a street separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property, no consent is required from the owners or occupants of property located on the opposite side of the street. Where a property within 150 feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need only obtain the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building. (3) Fees: (a) The permit fee and other fees and charges set forth in this chapter shall be collected by the City before the issuance of any permits and the Building Official, or other persons duly authorized to issue the permit for which the payment of a fee is required under the provisions of this chapter, may not issue a permit until the fees shall have been paid. (c) The City Council shall, from time to time, establish a fee schedule by ordinance. 8 704.10 PENALTY. Violation of this chapter shall be grounds for administrative enforcement pursuant to chapter 104.03 of this code. 9