06-04-13 Planning Comm Mtg AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 4 JUNE 2013 7:00 P.M.
4 (T R TAT n 4
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
GENG (Apr)
CHARBONNET (May)
GARELICK (Aug)
LABADIE (Sep)
MADDY (Jul)
MUEHLBERG (Jun)
DAVIS (Mar)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7 May 2013
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AUTOMOBILE CLEANING AND BICYCLE REPAIR SERVICE
Applicant: James Steinwand
Location: 5680 County Road 19
2. DISCUSSION
Zoning Code — General Provisions - Fences
Noise Ordinance
Smithtown Crossing (What's Next ?)
Life -Cycle Housing
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
7. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Labadie, and Maddy; and
Planning Director Nielsen
Absent: Commissioner Muehlberg
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Garelick moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for May 7, 2013, as presented. Motion
passed 6/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 5, 2013
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5,
2013, as presented. Motion passed 6/0
2. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Dave and Lori Free
Location: 5885 Seamans Drive
Chair Geng noted that Dave and Lori Free, 5885 Seamans Drive, are proposing to subdivide their
property. He explained the Shorewood Planning Commission is made up of residents appointed by the
City Council. The Commission does not have the final say on matters such as this subdivision application.
Its role is advisory only; it makes recommendations to the City Council. The Commission helps develop
the public record. He described the process that Neill be folloNved this evening. He noted that Council may
consider these items during its May 28, 2013, meeting.
Commissioner Garelick asked what Nvould require a public hearing to be held for a subdivision. Director
Nielsen explained that if the subdivision Nvould create more than three lots it requires platting and plats
require a public hearing.
Director Nielsen explained Dave and Lori Free oN -,n the property located at 5885 Seamans Drive. They
propose to divide the property into two lots. The property is zoned R -IA, Single - Family Residential. It
contains 3.7 acres of area. The only thing currently on the property is the Free's home. The northerly lot
Nvith the home on it Nvill have approximately 121,825 square feet of area including Nvetland area. The new
southerly lot Nvill have approximately 40,902 square feet of area. It does not include any Nvetland area.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Matt 7, 2013
Page 2 of 10
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the right- of -Nyay (ROW) for Seamans Drive that
abuts the Free property is substandard at 33 feet of Nyidth. The City has the opportunity to acquire right -
of -NyaN- when there is a subdivision. The Frees have agreed to give the City 17 feet of ROW on the east
side of their property in order to bring Seamans Drive up to the standard for city streets. That Nyill not
adversely affect the size of the proposed lots or the buildable area.
The northerly portion of the existing lot has a lot of Nyetland on it. It has been delineated Nyetland pursuant
to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The drivevyav encroaches into the Nyetland. The existing garage
extends into 35 -foot buffer that is required under the WCA and under the Citv's Zoning Code. The
existing home Nyas constructed prior to the adoption of the WCA. Therefore, it is an existing condition.
The City gets an easement over the Nyetland and buffer area. The easement Neill exempt those existing
features.
The southerly lot is quite buildable. The subdivision Nyill not require anv tree removal. Therefore, tree
preservation and reforestation Neill be addressed Nyith any building permits for the southerIv lot.
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of this case Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision
subject to the folloNving.
1. The applicants' surveyor must revise the legal description for the conservation easement to
include the 35 -foot buffer.
The applicants' attorney must provide deeds for the folloNving:
A. The (revised) Nyetland conservation easement.
B. The additional 17 feet of ROW for Seamans Drive
C. Drainage and utility easements (10 feet) are required around the southerly lot. On the
northerIv lot they need oniv extend along the southerly boundary and easterly boundary up to
Nyhere the conservation easement is.
3. The applicants' attorney must submit an up -to -date title opinion for the property for revieNy by the
Citv Attornev.
The applicants' surveyor must stake the 35 -foot Nyetland buffer and shovy the location of the
stakes on the survey.
The previous four items must be completed Nyithin 30 days, after Nyhich the request Nyill be
scheduled for Citv Council review.
6. Prior to release of a resolution approving the subdivision, the applicants must pay a park
dedication fee of $5000 and a local sanitary seNver access charge of $1200 for the neNy lot. Credit
is given for the lot Nth the house on it.
7. After the applicants receive the Council resolution approving the request, they must record it Nyith
Hennepin County Nyithin 30 days or the approval is void.
Nielsen stated if there is any problem Nyith completing Items 1 — 4 above Nyithin 30 days the applicants
must request an extension from the City before the 30 days is up.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 7, 2013
Page 3 of 10
Nielsen noted Lori Free is present this evening.
Commissioner Garelick asked Ms. Free if their intent is to build a house on the southerly property or to
sell it. Ms. Free stated at this time they are considering building a small house on the lot.
Commissioner Davis asked how much buildable space Nvould be left on the northerly lot once the buffer is
factored out. Director Nielsen responded it Nvould be close to 40,000 square feet.
Director Nielsen explained there are two different kinds of Nvetland provisions in the City Ordinance. One
is for when it is a City- designated Nvetland. The City did a map in the early 1970s and an -ahing on that
map is subtracted from lot area. The lot Nvould have to have 40,000 square feet exclusive of the Nvetland
area. With WCA designated Nvetlands they are not subtracted from the lot area but the City does look at
buildability to make sure there is ample room to build a house.
Chair Geng asked if any part of the ROW Nvill extend into the northerly property. Director Nielsen stated
it is shoN -,n to the northerly edge of the southerly lot.
Geng moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Lori and Dave
Lee, 5885 Seamans Drive, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion passed 6/0.
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Joan Whetston
Location: 26040 Smithtown Lane
Director Nielsen explained Joan Whetston oN -,ns the property located at 26040 SmithtoN -,n Lane. Ms.
Whetston proposes to subdivide the lot into two building sites. The property is zoned R -1C, Single -
Family Residential. It is occupied by Ms. Whetston's home and detached garage. The property currently
contains 50,434 feet of area. The proposed lots Neill be 30,422 square feet and 20,012 square feet in area.
The R1 -C district requires 20,000 square foot lots.
Nielsen revieNved some interesting history relative to the subject property. The easterIv 33 feet of the
property consists of road right- of -N-my (ROW) that Nvas vacated N hen SmithtoN -,n Road Nvas straightened
Nears ago. The area Nvas platted as Nvas the old cul -de -sac Nears ago. It did not show up Nvhen the City
Nvent to do a road improvement along SmithtoN -,n Lane so the City acquired basically a Nvhole new circle
in that location.
Nielsen explained both lots satisfy the minimum requirements of the R1 -C district N ith regard to size and
Nvidth. The new lot line between the two lots has a slight Nvesterly deflection in order to achieve the
20,000 square foot area requirement. Ordinarily the City does not recommend any gerrymandering of lot
lines. HoNvever, since the deflection is quite slight, it does not adversely affect buildable area or disrupt
the open space created by side yard setbacks.
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of this case Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision
subject to the folloNving.
1. The applicant must provide legal descriptions for the proposed lots. (Those Nvere received earlier
in the day.)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 7, 2013
Page 4 of 10
2. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10
feet on each side of each lot line.
The applicant must provide an up -to -date (Nvithin 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attornev.
4. If the applicant proposes that the new lot Neill share the existing driveway serving the property to
the east, a driveway easement/maintenance agreement must be recorded Nvith the division.
5. Items 1 -4 must be submitted prior to the request being scheduled for City Council review, but no
later than 30 days.
Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay a park dedication
fee of $5000 and a local sanitary seNver access charge of $1200. Credit has been given for the lot
Nvith the existing house on it.
7. Since the minor subdivision itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property,
tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for.
Nielsen noted that Ms. Whetston is present this evening.
Commissioner Garelick asked if Ms. Whetston has been able to put a value on the proposed new lot. Ms.
Whetston responded she does not know. Director Nielsen clarified that is not necessary for the
subdivision approval process.
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Joan Whetston,
26040 Smithtown Lane, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion passed 6/0.
4. DISCUSSION
Trail Implementation Process
Director Nielsen stated that Staff continues to refine a revision to the Trail Implementation Process found
in the Shorewood Trail Implementation Study based on the actual process used for the County Road 19
sidewalk project and the SmithtoN -,n Road Nvest sideNvalk project. Construction on both projects start in
June.
Nielsen explained when the trail Nvalk Nvas originally included in the process its intent Nvas to get residents
to come out and talk to the Planning Commissioners. Not many residents came out to say anything for the
SmithtoN -,n Road Nvest sideNvalk project. The Commission did find value in doing the Nvalk because it
could see the characteristics of the route along the Nvay. The Commission realized the benefits of having
an informal open house at the Minnewashta Elementary School about the project as part of the trail
planning process.
Nielsen stated the copy of the Trail Implementation Process dated March 29, 2013, has significantly more
steps than the process included in the Trail Implementation Plan. The steps in bold indicate Planning
Commission or Council action is required. He noted that he Neill put the process into a floNvehart format
prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. He read through the steps in the process.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 7, 2013
Page 5 of 10
Trail Implementation Process
r Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year (In
this case for Galpin Lake Road and Mill Street for 2014 which are next on the priorities list in the
Trail Implementation Study.)
Council authorizes preparation of the survey and feasibility report (This has not been done
for the 2014 potential projects. Council Nvill consider that during its May 28 "' meeting. The City
has received a grant to cover part of the Mill Street feasibility study. Excelsior is going to conduct
a feasibility study for its share of the trail but is not sure if it Nvill build a segment of the trail.
Shorewood's part of the trail Nvould connect Nvith Chanhassen's trail system. The engineers
recommend conducting the survey prior to doing the feasibility study so the study is more
accurate.)
Survey (30 days) — May (That Neill take place in June for the two 2014 segments.)
Feasibility Report (30 days) — June (It may be possible for that to be done by early to mid -July for
2014 projects)
Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk — July (For 2014 projects
late July or early August.)
Planning Commission recommendation to Council re the feasibility report (The feasibility
report Neill make a recommendation on the logical location. It Nvill most likely be on the east side
for Mill Street. The Commission Neill make a recommendation on the Nvidth and type of trail. The
Trail Implementation Plan indicates the standard trail Nvill be six feet Nvide and the surface Nvould
normally be bituminous. Chanhassen's trails are 8 — 10 feet Nvide and have a bituminous surface.)
r Council approves the feasibility report
r Planning Commission holds neighborhood meeting (open house)
r Council awards of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of plans and
specifications
Preparation of plans and specifications (90 days which is pretty tight)
Land acquisition process (start approximately mid -waN- through plans and specifications)
• Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions
• Review proposed easements N-, th staff/city attorney
• Letters to property oN -,ners regarding survey staking
• Field stake proposed easements for the appraiser /right- of -N -my agent (It's anticipated that
easements Nvill not be needed for the 2014 projects.)
• Easement viewing — parcel oN -,ner and right -of -N ay agent on site
• Appraisal information
• Appraisal review
• Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and create an eminent
domain schedule (If there appears to any issues Nvith obtaining easements the eminent
domain schedule is started. It is a 90 -day quick -take process that takes 120 days.)
• Prepare and deliver offers to parcel oN -,ners for the easements
Neighborhood informational meeting (To provide residents Nvith details not available during the
first open house and to get information.)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 7, 2013
Page 6 of 10
Begin eminent domain action if need be (For the SmithtoN -,n Road Nvest project that Nvill start the
end of Ma -,T. There are three Nvilling property owners out of five. There is one property in
foreclosure. There is one property owner that is questionable because he thinks he should get
more money for his trees.)
r Council approves plans and specifications and authorizes advertisement for bids
I- Receive bids for construction
Council awards construction contract
Neighborhood preconstruction meeting
City takes possession of easements /letter of compliance by either purchase or eminent domain
r Groundbreaking ceremony
Begin construction (June of the year folloN ing when the projects Nvere first started)
Construction substantially complete (end of summer early fall)
Ribbon cutting ceremony
Restoration complete (ideally the year of construction but possibly the folloNving spring)
Nielsen stated this new process should be adopted into the Trail Implementation Plan.
Commissioner Davis stated many years ago when the City considered a trail along SmithtoN -,n Road near
the elementary school there Nvas brouhaha about it. She asked if the change in heart is because the
properties in the area have changed hands.
Director Nielsen stated there has been some change in ovriership, noting there is more support for
trails /sidewalks in general. The City Nvas more specific about the route this time. He thought that the more
residents know the more accepting they might be. Staff has met Nvith some of the ovriers about the
questions or concerns since the open house meetings for the SmithtoN -,n Road Nvest sidewalk project. It
Nvas helpful that the City of Victoria built a sideNvalk/trail and the residents had something to look at.
Commissioner Davis asked how many people attended the second open house for the SmithtoN -,n Road
Nvest sidewalk project. Director Nielsen responded maybe a dozen.
Director Nielsen stated that earlier on in the SmithtoN -,n Road Nvest sideNvalk project it Nvas estimated that
the City Nvould need easements from 13 property ovmers. The number Nvas reduced to 5.
Commissioner Davis asked what the City is paying for the easements. Director Nielsen stated it varies.
The most expensive he saw Nvas for $12,400 and most of that Nvas for tree loss.
Director Nielsen stated a groundbreaking ceremony is tentatively scheduled for June 10 "' for both the
Countv Road 19 sideNvalk/trail and the SmithtoN -,n Road Nvest sidewalk.
Commissioner Davis asked how long it Nvill take to construct the County Road 19 sidewalk. Director
Nielsen stated he is not sure but he thought it Nvould take roughly a month.
Commissioner Maddv asked what city the Countv Road 19 sideNvalk/trail Nvill be located in. Director
Nielsen responded Shorewood. Maddy then asked who Nvill be responsible for maintenance and snow
removal of the SmithtoN -,n Road Nvest sidewalk. Nielsen said the Citv Neill be.
Commissioner Labadie asked who does the survey for the trail projects. Is it someone on City staff or is it
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Matt 7, 2013
Page 7 of 10
contracted out? Director Nielsen explained the engineering firm the City uses, WSB & Associates, does
that Nvork. WSB also does the plans.
Commissioner Davis asked Director Nielsen when the next trail Nvallc Nvill be. Director Nielsen stated
maybe before the Planning Commission's August meeting and noted that the Nvallc for both the Galpin
Lake Road and Mill Street trail may occur that evening.
There Nvas Planning Commission consensus that the Trail Implementation Process could be sent to
Council.
Zoning Code — Wind Generators
Director Nielsen stated when the Planning Commission reviewed the General Provisions section of the
Zoning code in 2012 it identified Nvind generators (Nvind mills, Nvind turbines, etc.) as an item for future
study. The City Ordinance does not address Nvind generators other than through some height and use
requirements. The City has received a few inquiries about them. When the Commission's 2013 Nvork
program Nvas reviewed Nvith Council it suggested that solar be addressed as Nvell.
Nielsen then stated that the City of Orono received a permit request from a property owner about putting
up a Nvind generator. Orono's Ordinance did not address that so staff decided not to review the permit.
That property oN -,ner sued Orono because it Nvould not consider it. The last he heard Orono Nvas told to at
least consider the request.
Nielsen explained the City s Ordinance has a catchall provision that the City Attorney believes protects
the City against the type of lawsuit Orono is in. The City s Ordinance states if something is not
specificalIv allowed then it is specifically prohibited. If someone Nvere to apply for a permit for a Nvind
generator and it is not among the uses that are listed as a permitted use, an accessory use or conditional
use then it is prohibited unless the Ordinance is amended. He noted that from his vantage point he thought
the Ordinance should specifically address Nvind generators one N-,-a-,- or the other.
Nielsen stated other cities have adopted Nvind generator ordinances. He commented there is a tremendous
amount of information on them on the internet. He stated Nvind generators tend to be allowed in areas
N-,-here there is a lot of rural land. The more urban a cit -,T is the less they are alloNved. He noted there are
some st -,Tles of Nvind generators that may Nvork in an urban area. He stated a person who asked staff about
Nvind generators told staff about a vertical Nvind turbine. From his vantage point they are not as obtrusive
as the propeller type. Vertical Nvind turbines might be something the City Nvould allow Nvith certain
requirements if they are to be allowed at all.
Nielsen explained the Nvebsite www.windturbinesnow.com has a lot of good information on it. There is a
lot of background information and information about issues. He noted there is a large Nvind generator in
the doN -,ntoN -,n area of the City of Maple Grove. He explained the meeting packet contains copies of
information from that Nvebsite about advantages or disadvantages of Nvind energy, residential Nvind
turbines, horizontal axis Nvind turbines, vertical axis Nvind turbines, cvlindrical and conical Nvind turbines,
and rooftop Nvind turbines.
Commissioner Davis suggested having someone come and talk to the Planning Commission about Nvind
turbines.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 7, 2013
Page 8 of 10
Chair Geng suggested considering having a public forum on Nvind turbines. He stated he did not think
there is a sense of urgency about this topic. He indicated that he thought it behooves the Planning
Commission to make an informed recommendation about Nvind turbines. Involving the residents Nvould
provide them the opportunity to learn about them.
Director Nielsen asked Chair Geng and Commissioner Davis if they Nvere thinking about a panel
discussion. Chair Geng stated he thought that Nvould be Nvonderful particularly if the panel Nvould have
people Nvith opposing viev,-points.
Chair Geng suggested consideration be given to doing something Jointly Nvith the other South Lake area
cities and having it at the Southshore Community Center. Commissioner Davis stated during the planning
and zoning training session in January one of the participants from the City of Deephaven indicated they
Nvere starting to talk about Nvind turbines. Geng stated it Nvould be a great opportunity to get dialogue
going between the cities.
Commissioner Garelick stated Nvith the advent of new technology come scammers. He explained there
Nvas a company in the City of Excelsior that Nvas selling turbines to people. All of a sudden it Nvas gone.
Commissioner Charbonnet stated the allegation Nvas it Nvas selling the product and not delivering it or not
finishing the installation.
Chair Geng stated he does not know what the benefits of Nvind generation are relative to solar generation.
He suggested broadening it to alternative energy study (both Nvind and solar).
Director Nielsen stated solar is not as complicated because there are no moving parts. It does not need to
be as high. What makes Nvind turbines Nvork best is to get them high into the Nvind.
Director Nielsen stated he Nvould prepare a matrix of what other cities do and don't allow for the next
Planning Commission meeting. He asked the Commission to give some thought as to whom it Nvould like
to have sit on a panel of experts and he Nvill do the same. He stated he Nvill talk to the other South Lake
area cities and the Cities of Chanhassen and Minnetrista about participating in a forum. Chair Geng stated
from his vantage point Chanhassen and Minnetrista are a little different because they have a lot larger
lots.
Chair Geng stated it may be helpful to have an academic on the panel
Commissioner Charbonnet stated he knows a couple of potential panelists. He has a client that is a Nvind
farm developer albeit large scale stuff. He knows a person who is Nvorking on technology to help capture
the maximum amount of Nvind. He noted he Nvill ask them both if they Nvould be interested in being a
panelist.
Director Nielsen suggested limiting the panel discussion to Nvind turbines. He questioned if there is a need
to have a separate panel for solar, noting he does think it should be included in the study. He commented
that part of the reason solar hasn't taken off quickly is it doesn't pay for itself fast enough.
5. 2013 WORK PROGRAM
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission's 2013 Nvork program still needs to be tweaked. He
noted the items have been extended out a month because he could not make it to the April Commission
meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 7, 2013
Page 9 of 10
Nielsen reviewed the status of the items in the program.
• Update Trail Implementation Process — it should be completed in May
• Zoning Code Study / General Provisions — this should be N rapped up in June
• Noise Ordinance — he Nvill draft an ordinance for the June meeting
• SmithtoN -,n Crossing — What is next? — discuss in June
• Trail Plan / Galpin Lake Road Trail — the recommendation for a survey and feasibility study Neill
go before Council during its May 28 "' meeting
• Trail Plan / Mill Street Trail — the recommendation for a survey and feasibility study Neill go
before Council during its May 28 "' meeting
• Zoning Code Study / Zoning Permits — fences, temporary signs and patio /sideNvalks still need to
be done
• Zoning Code Study / Life Cycle Housing (housing for people over 55) — to be discussed during
the June meeting
• Comprehensive Plan / Revisit Planning District 6 (basically the easterly end of County Road 19
in Shorewood)
• Annual Variance Discussion — September
• Comprehensive Plan / Policies Relating to Variances and Nonconformities — start discussion in
September
• Zoning Code Study / Residential Districts — start discussion in August
• Sustainability / Minnesota GreenStep — no timeframe
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There Nvere no matters from the floor presented this evening.
7. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
Chair Geng asked what happened Nvith the zoning permit proposal. Director Nielsen responded Council
approved it Nvith the exception of fences, temporary signs and patio /sideNvalks. Council Nvill consider the
fee schedule during its May 28 "' meeting.
Commissioner Davis stated the property at the intersection SmithtoN -,n Road and Eureka Road has two ice
houses and a tent for a boat on it. She then stated a former park commissioner who had once lived on that
property had told her that the house Nvas actually in the railroad right- of -Nvay.
Director Nielsen stated the City has had problems Nvith people who have lived on that property in the past.
Chair Geng asked what is happening Nvith All American Recreation. Director Nielsen noted that property
is actualIv located in the City of Tonka Bay. Nielsen explained the City is involved in a small dispute
Nvith respect to the property. A person is trying to buy it. More than 30 Nears ago the then property owner
bought a little strip of land from the railroad when it Nvas still railroad right- of -Nvay. That division and
combination Nvas never approved by Shorewood. It has no property identification number. He has been
asked to allow the transfer of that property. It Nvas an illegal subdivision because the City did not approve
it. He has told people they need to go through the minor subdivision process.
Geng stated there Nvas an article published in the Star Tribune a few Nveeks ago about park dedication
fees.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 7, 2013
Page 10 of 10
Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the City's park dedication fee is reasonable. In the 1980's it
Nvas high when compared to other cities' fees. They have since caught up or surpassed the City's. He
explained that the rule of thumb has been that cities can charge up to10 percent of the value of the raw
land. About 2 — 3 years ago the City increased its fee from $2,000 per lot to $5,000 per lot. From his
vantage point the $5,000 rate the fee is still reasonable.
Chair Geng stated in the article most of the pushback Nvas from commercial developers.
Commissioner Davis stated she Nvas on the Park Commission when the fee Nvas raised from $1,200 to
$2,000. She then stated the City has a disproportional park surface based on the size of the community.
8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Chair Geng stated the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2013.
Director Nielsen stated there are no applications as of yet to be considered during that meeting. The
meeting Nvill focus on the Nvork program items talked about earlier that he said Nvould be discussed during
the June meeting [general provisions, noise ordinance, what's next Nvith the SmithtoN -,n Crossing, and
housing for people 55 and over].
9. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
None.
SLUC
None.
Other
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Davis moved, Charbonnet seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 7, 2013,
at 8:38 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Christine Freeman, Recorder
C r W OF
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD a SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 Q (952) 960 --7900
FAX (052) 474 -0128 w www.ci.shorowood.rnn.us m cityliall ci.sliorowood.i�nn.ris
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
30 May 2013
My Car Guy, LLC — Conditional Use Permit
405(13.03)
Mr. James Steinwand, owner of My Car Guy, LLC, proposes to lease the property at 5680
County Road 19 (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached) from the American Legion
Post next door. Mr. Steinwand, who also operates an auto repair business at 24470
Smithtown Road, intends to expand his business to include auto detailing and bicycle repair
at the subject property.
The site is occupied by an old gas station building that has been vacant for a number of years.
It is zoned C -1, General Commercial and contains 13,414 square feet of area. The existing
building measures 28'x44.5' and contains 1246 square feet of floor area. Land uses and
zoning surrounding the subject property are as follows:
North: Retail store; zoned C -1
East: County Rd. 19, then commercial strip mall in Tonka Bay; zoned
commercial
South: Smithtown Rd., then golf course; zoned R -IA, Single - Family Resdential
West: American Legion Club; zoned C -1
Exhibits B and C illustrate how the property exists today. As can be seen on Exhibit C, the
current parking lot does not conform to Shorewood zoning standards. The building itself
complies with setback requirements for the C -1 district.
ro
V.,$ PRIN'1 "ED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: My Car Guy C.U.P.
30 May 2013
The applicant proposes to make repairs to the existing building and remodel to accommodate
his auto detailing business. He also proposed to repair bicycles at this location. Part of the
remodeling includes the addition of two overhead doors on the north end of the east side of
the building as illustrated on Exhibit G.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A. Land Use. The applicant's proposal falls into the category of "auto repair — minor" which
requires a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.d. of the
Shorewood Zoning Code. This particular C.U.P. lists 15 conditions that must be satisfied
in order to obtain a permit. Of those, the following are highlighted for consideration:
1. The applicant does not propose to physically alter the building, with the exception of
the two overhead doors to be added on the east side, facing County Road 19.
2. The applicant has not submitted any kind of landscape plan (which will be addressed
in more detail further on in this report) so it is not known what treatment will be given
to areas not covered by building and parking.
3. The applicant's plans are extremely rudimentary (see Exhibit D) and do not address
how the parking lot resurfacing will be drained. A drainage plan, prepared by a
registered professional engineer or landscape architect should be required prior to
final approval of a C.U.P.
4. There is no indication in the applicant's submission that curbing is proposed for the
parking and driveway areas. Six inch high, continuous concrete curbing is
recommended.
5. Landscaping should include some sort of screening along the south edge of the
proposed parking area, as well as additional vegetation as recommended in the
County Road 19 Corridor Study.
6. The applicant proposes to retain both driveways on the property. Staff suggests that
the driveway on County Road 19 is unnecessary to the proposed operation, results in a
poor parking layout, and adds additional hardcover. If hardcover proves to be an
issue, it is recommended that this driveway be removed, providing an opportunity for
better parking lot design.
7. The applicant has not submitted a sign plan, however, that issue can be addressed
administratively under a separate sign permit. It is worth noting that the property is
allowed three signs in total, one free - standing sign and two wall signs. Like other
properties, this one is allowed two temporary sign permits, for 10 days each, per year.
The C.U.P. should reference compliance with sign codes as a condition of approval.
The C.U.P. should address the issue of using business vehicles as signage (e.g.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: My Car Guy C.U.P.
30 May 2013
commercial vehicles must be screened from view, particularly outside of business
hours).
8. The applicant has indicated that there will be no outdoor storage, which would require
a separate C.U.P. The permit should expressly state that outdoor storage of any kind
is not allowed. Along with that, the applicant's plans should address where the trash
enclosure will be located.
9. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. It must be mentioned that the proposed
use is not what was intended in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. The
Study states, however, that individual sites will be reviewed under current code
requirements. Although it appears that the American Legion is simply trying to rent
the space until ultimate redevelopment of the area occurs, it is essential that even
"temporary" activities meet city standards.
B. Site Requirements. The applicant's plans are considered quite conceptual and have not
been professionally prepared. Exhibits C, E, and F were prepared by staff simply to
clarify what is being proposed. The following items should be required to be included in
plans prepared by professionals, either a registered engineer or a registered landscape
architect:
1. Setbacks. Current setback requirements are illustrated on Exhibit C. As can be seen,
the existing building complies with C -1 district setback requirements, but the current
parking lot does not. The applicant's plans propose to use the parking lot and
driveways as they currently exist, patching in where asphalt has previously been
removed. It is recommended that the parking lot be corrected to include concrete
perimeter curbing and removing the portions of the parking lot that do not comply
(see Exhibit F).
2. Parking lot design. The applicant proposes five perpendicular parking spaces in the
southwest corner of the site (see Exhibits D and E) and two parallel spaces along the
east edge of the parking lot. For the use proposed, the Zoning Code requires eight
parking spaces. Exhibit F shows one way this could be revised to achieve the eight
spaces while correcting the existing nonconformity. It is worth noting that this is not
considered to be the best design. Circulation between the two driveways conflicts
with the parallel parking and the parallel parking may conflict with access into the
building. A better alternative would be to eliminate the County Road 19 driveway
and create four perpendicular parking spaces on the north side of the existing
pavement.
3. Landscaping. As mentioned no landscape plan has been presented. The applicant
should be directed to commission a registered landscape architect to prepare a
landscape plan that includes the requirements of the Zoning Code and the
recommendations of the County Road 19 Corridor Study.
-3-
Memorandum
Re: My Car Guy C.U.P.
30 May 2013
RECOMMENDATION
While it is not unreasonable for the American Legion to want to find some sort of interim
use of their property until some significant redevelopment takes place, it must be realized
that the use could be there for quite some time. Given the plans submitted to date, the
very most that can be recommended by staff at this time is some sort of conceptual
approval. That is, give the applicant an indication that the use is acceptable, subject to his
adequately addressing the issues raised herein.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Larry Brown
Paul Hornby
Jim Steinwand
M
E
I
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
My Car Guy C.U.P.
k
i
L
Ll
v
I&
Exhibit B
AERIAL PHOTO
Present Conditions
X978.6
J-
)78.3 X
i N
.a
r
J ,o
978.6
X
I
x
979;.1' a
o
c
y
azo encl!i�dr
a �p. d iron Pipe
C ° 0 979.5
1, 979.5
X979,2 `
N -•00
81'33"
gg.7
� ae o N f o ";33
� , Sub• di
980.
V
O
c. Q)
2 )K97
'77 100.00
N 81
X 978.3
w
pond
• to-W n' GRAPHIC. SCALE
20 0 10 _ 20
( IN FEET )
X978.0
I
I
cV 0 x
979.1
NORTH
Lo
OBI
O I
CN
x
I
I
e. p�
�J o
l
X 978.3
0
979;.1' a
o
c
y
azo encl!i�dr
a �p. d iron Pipe
C ° 0 979.5
1, 979.5
X979,2 `
N -•00
81'33"
gg.7
� ae o N f o ";33
� , Sub• di
980.
V
O
c. Q)
2 )K97
'77 100.00
N 81
X 978.3
w
pond
• to-W n' GRAPHIC. SCALE
20 0 10 _ 20
( IN FEET )
X978.0
3.3 rJ � 978.5
978.3
X 978.6
l 7 7. 6
Exhibit C
EXISTING CONDITIONS
33
NORTH
X979.9
: >:`: {:979.8
CN
l
X 978.3
80.0
(X978.6
O ,�
10
X978.4
978.6
i
i
"lV
m
o
3.3 rJ � 978.5
978.3
X 978.6
l 7 7. 6
Exhibit C
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bet
of iron Pipe Exhibit D
fop'
9 7g
7 .5 APPLICANT'S SITE PLAN
—100
1. .00
979.5
81,00 Iji "
__99.79`
X978.6
Lot 25-----
33
of
t line 80 13-3
X 978.6 7711 Sub-
s
Auditor
979.6
X979.9
8.3
X
X979.8
co
a
78.6
—980.7
X 978.3
—1
9807
. —
51.1 9 0.0
28,01,
X
X978.
Q)
N- N-
N
co
I (
3
/
/
CL,
1
'979,1
X
979,4
49.2 1�15
X 978.4
pkt
Z2
-R979.8
/ 28.0,
.
�
Q
Q;
LO
9,79.2
979.2
w 978.6
0
7g
X
J
I
-L
moo,
l�
�
�,
o;
Cb
o
CO
—1979.1
978.8
G 9785
--4,1978.3 -
978.3
X978.6
Bet
of iron Pipe Exhibit D
fop'
9 7g
7 .5 APPLICANT'S SITE PLAN
—100
1. .00
979.5
X 978.6
)78.3 X I I
978.6
X
I
Vi
X
IIX978.
61
N
X
979.1 -A979.8
Lo
Q)
9
- -1
Q)
O
O
979,1
o
rA
e clllnark
o_ojf,21jirorI
rck
�zt,
Pipe
TOP
X 978.4
9,g
kk979.5
X 979.2
4
81-00 ,3J
N 79--
T
25
line .- 6,F 013
he as
078.6 u 's
Sub. NO.
A ditor
Cf)
QO
980.7
77_7
100.0
X 978.3
goad
to itIttowlt GRAPHIC. SCALE
20 0 10 20
60
IN FEET
X978.0
Exhibit E
ENHANCED SITE PLAN
Prepared by City Staff
I
Vi
IIX978.
61
O
X 978.4
978.6
0,
t
Qv
978.5
X978.6
)77.6........
Exhibit E
ENHANCED SITE PLAN
Prepared by City Staff
�.
S"
��._
a
a
31
(A
Exhibit H
•
I
I
�.y
r
1 CITY OF
SHUREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 - 8927 • (952) 960 -7900
FAX
r (952) 474 -0128 www.cLshorewood.mn us dtyhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us
i
I
i
i
i
MEMORANDUM
i
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 31 May 2013
2
RE: Zoning Code Discussion — Fence Regulations
I
FILE NO. Zoning (Fences)
Last month the City Council adopted an amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Code that
established a system of zoning permits for items regulated by Code, but not necessarily subject to
building permits. Of the items proposed to be included in that,amendment, the Council chose to
leave out fences. Direction given to staff was to have the Planning Commission take a thorough
look' at Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.£ (a copy of which is attached for your review). One issue raised,
for example, is what constitutes a fence that would be subject to a zoning permit? Does a chicken
wire garden fence require a permit? What about a small wire fence around shrubbery? €
The Zoning Code defines "fence" as: "A partition, structure, wall or gate, erected as a dividing
r
marker, barrier, or enclosure."
I
s
fi
This section of the Code will be discussed at Tuesday night's meeting.
I
Cc: Laura Hotvet
I
®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1201.03 Zoning Regulations 1201.03
f. Fences - general requirements.
(1) Permit required. No person, firm;or- corporation shall construct or erect
any fence without first securing a building permit.
(2) Locations. All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the
fence owner unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees, in writing,
that the fence may be erected on the property line of the respective
properties. No boundary line fence shall be erected closer than three feet
to an existing parallel boundary line fence.
(3) Surveys. The Building Official may require an applicant for a fence permit
to establish his or her true boundary line by a survey thereof to be made
by a registered land surveyor.
(4) Construction and maintenance. Every fence shall be constructed in a
substantial, workmanlike manner and of material reasonably suited for the
purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall be
maintained in the condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore or public
or private nuisance. All fences shall be so constructed that the finished
side faces away from the fence owner's lot. Any fence which endangers
the public safety, health or welfare shall be considered a public nuisance
and abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper city official if
within 15 days after notification the owner of the fence has not undertaken
the necessary repairs himself or herself to abate the nuisance. Link fences,
where permitted, shall be constructed in a manner that no barbed ends
shall be at the top.
(5) Nonconforming fences. All fences existing on the date of the adoption of
this chapter, but not conforming herewith, except as to height restrictions,
shall conform and be subject to the terms of this chapter. If at any time a
nonconforming fence shall be damaged to the extent of more than 25 % in
any plane, then without further action by the Council, the fence shall,
from and after the date of the damage, be subject to all the regulations
specified by these zoning regulations. Any fence which is damaged to an
extent of less than 25 % may be restored to its former extent. It is the
intent of this section that all nonconforming fences shall be eventually
brought into conformity.
(6) Prohibited fences. Electric fences shall not be permitted except in
conjunction with the issuance of a horse permit pursuant to Chapter 702
of this code and shall be removed upon expiration or revocation of a horse
permit. Barbed wire fences shall not be permitted except as hereinafter
provided. Fences of the picket, rail or slat types shall be so constructed
that the spaces between the pickets, rails or slats shall be greater than 12
1201 -29
1201.03 Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations 1201.03
inches or less than six inches. Wire fences which are not readily visible
shall be prohibited except where attached to a wooden or other fence of
opaque material which is itself plainly visible.
(7) Required fences, swimming pools. Outdoor swimming pools with a
capacity of 1,500 gallons or with a depth of three feet or more of water
shall be adequately fenced to prevent uncontrolled access from the street
or adjoining property. The pools shall be completely enclosed by a
noncUmbable fence at least four feet in height.
(8) Shoreline fences. No fence shall be allowed within the shoreline setback
area as specified in § 1201.26 Subd. 5a(3) of this chapter. In addition,
fences on or adjacent to the shoreline of any navigable lake, channel or
stream or on or along that portion of a lot line extending from a navigable
lake, channel or stream to the near side of the average building
construction line, shall not exceed four feet in height.
(9) Residential District fences.
(a) Boundary line fences. In all parts of Shorewood which are zoned
residential, no boundary line fences shall exceed four feet in
height, except that:
(i) Fences on all corner lots erected within 30 feet of the
intersecting property line shall be subject to subdivision 2h
of this section;
(ii) Fences along any rear property line which is also the rear
property line of an abutting lot shall not exceed six feet in
height;
(iii) Fences along a rear property line, which line constitutes the
side lot line of an abutting lot shall not exceed six feet in
height for a distance as calculated in (iv) below and shall
not exceed four feet in height when abutting a front yard
line;
(iv) Subject to other restrictions within this section, fences may
be constructed to a height of six feet on or along the side
yard property line from the rear lot line to the required
front yard setback line;
1201 -30
1201.03 Zoning Regulations 1201.03
(v) In those instances where a fence exists as an enclosure
which restricts access from the front to the rear yard, a
gate, identifiable collapsible section or other means of
recognizable ingress shall be provided for emergency
vehicles. The ingress shall be unobstructed and a minimum
of ten feet in width. The location of the ingress points shall
be positioned at any point paralleling the front lot line,
between the side lot property line and the principal
structure;
(vi) All boundary line fences in residential districts shall be
constructed in a manner that at least 25 % of the plane
between the ground and the top of the fence constructed is
�1 open;
(vii) Fences in yards abutting an intermediate arterial or minor
arterial street, as designated in the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan, may be constructed to a height of six
feet in a front or side yard abutting the arterial street, by
conditional use permit as provided for in § 1201.04. In
addition the following conditions shall apply:
A. The fence shall be located no closer than eight feet
to the property line;
B. A landscape plan for the above - referenced eight
foot setback area must be submitted in compliance
with § 1201.03 subd. 2.g. of this chapter;
C. The fence shall not obstruct traffic visibility.
(b) Interior yard fences.
(i) Any fence erected within any portion of the required front
yard shall not exceed four feet in height and shall be at
least 25 % open.
(ii) Within a rear yard, at a point eight feet beyond any
property line, a solid fence up to six feet in height may be
erected as a total enclosure. The enclosure shall not exceed
25 % of the required rear yard area and shall have adequate
means of emergency access.
1201 -31
1201.03 Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations 1201.03
(iii) Chain link or woven wire fences (without slat screens,
canvas or other screening material opaque in nature) used
for the enclosure of tennis courts or other recreational
purposes shall not exceed ten feet in height.
(10) Commercial District fences. Fences in all Commercial Districts shall not
exceed eight feet in height, except that:
(a) Boundary line fences abutting R Districts shall conform to those
regulations applicable to the R District;
(b) Security fences:
(i) Fences which are erected primarily to secure a particular
area may have "arms" not to exceed 36 inches in length,
located a minimum of six feet and a maximum of eight feet
above ground level, on which arms barbed wire may be
strung;
(ii) A survey establishing the true boundary line must be made
by a registered land surveyor and submitted to the city;
(iii) Fence arm extensions may not extend across an abutting
property line or over any public right -of -way;
(c) Fences erected within the required front yard area shall not exceed
six feet in height and shall be of a chain link or woven wire
construction which affords maximum visibility.
(11) Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing
in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the
city by issuance of a conditional use permit.
(12) Fence height. The height of fences prescribed herein shall be considered
to be the maximum height allowed. Fence posts may extend above the
specified height by no more than eight inches.
g. Required screening and landscaping.
(1) General residential. Any portion of a lot that is disturbed by grading or
construction activities must be restored by seeding, sodding or landscaping
to prevent erosion. If restoration cannot be completed within the growing
season for which a certificate of occupancy is requested, the property
owner shall enter into an escrow agreement with the city and submit a cash
escrow or letter of credit for one and one -half times the estimated amount
1201 -32
vlJ
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900
f` FAX (952) 474 - 0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us • c1tyha11@c1.shorewood.mn.us
n r
i
I
i
MEMORANDUM
4
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 30 May 2013
RE: Code Discussion — Noise Ordinance
FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 501)
The Planning Commission has been working on and off for the past year on a possible noise
ordinance. As of last September, a draft ordinance was offered by staff (see Planner's
Memorandum, dated 27 September 2012 — attached). Discussion was subsequently bogged down
by a highly unusual nuisance situation in the Hillendale Drive neighborhood. Next, we decided to
wait and see what Excelsior was doing with respect to amending their noise ordinance.
So, now we have circled back to the draft ordinance in the 27 September memorandum. As
mentioned at subsequent meetings, the Hillendale problem cannot effectively be addressed by the
noise ordinance and staff continues to work on alternative solutions to that problem. With respect
to Excelsior's amendments, there are now two differences between their current code and our
proposed draft:
Construction hours. Excelsior allows construction to occur until 8:00 P.M., whereas our current
Policy is to stop work at 7:00 P.M.
I
Refuse hauling. Excelsior does not allow haulers to operate earlier than 7:00 A.M. whereas our
current policy allows them to start at 6:00 A.M.
L
The draft ordinance will be revisited at Tuesday night's meeting.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Laura Hotvet
j
f
®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 27 September 2012
RE: Code Discussion — Noise Ordinance
FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 501)
At its August meeting the Planning Commission reviewed a sampling of local noise
ordinances to help determine whether it is time for Shorewood to adopt its own such
regulation. As stated in the past, the City currently operates on a policy (relative to
construction activities) that restricts noise - making activities to the hours of 7:00 A.M.
to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays, 8 :00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays and no noise on
Sundays. While this has been relatively effective for construction projects involving a
building permit, it does not get at cases where lawnmowers, chain saws, etc. are
being used early or late in the day.
In reviewing various ordinances, the one used by Excelsior appears to cover much of
what we have discussed. Interestingly, they are reviewing their own requirements. It
has been suggested that their code is too restrictive on the early end of the day and too
generous late in the day. They have compiled a survey, shown on Exhibit A, attached.
The hours Shorewood has used as a matter of policy in the past is quite in line with
many of the communities that responded to the survey. In this regard, staff is
suggesting that those hours be maintained in any ordinance that may be adopted.
While it is likely that Excelsior will make some modifications to their code, we have
used it as a basis for our first draft. The biggest advantage to this is that the two cities
are served by the same police department and consistency can only enhance
enforcement. It should be noted that we have used the Eden Prairie provisions
regarding exceptions.
Following is a first draft of language that could be included in a code amendment:
®a
# 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER' -
Memorandum
Re: Noise Ordinance
27 September 2012
Subd. 20. Noise. The purpose of this, section is'to,protect the comfort, repose,
restrictions on the hours during which significant sources of noise; may be
health, peace, safety, or welfare of city residents, and the quiet enjoyment
of property within the city, by imposing reasonable used or operated.
i
a. - Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations.
(1) Recreational vehicles, N6 person shall, between the hours of
9:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. drive of operate any minibike,
snowmobile, or other recreational vehicle not licensed for
travel on public highways.
2 Domestic power equipment. No person, shall operate a
power lawn mower, power hedge clipper, chain saw,
mulches, garden tiller, edger, drill, or other similar domestic
power maintenance equipment except between the hours of
7:30 a.m. and 9:30'p.m. on any weekday or between the ,
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or holiday:
Snow removal equipment is exempt from this subsection.,
(3) Refuse;hauling. No person shall collect or remove garbage,
refuse, or recycling' in the city,,, except between the hours of ,
6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day.
(4); Construction activities. No person shall, engage in or permit
construction activities involvin g e use of any: ,kind of
,
electric, diesel, gas- powered'machine, or other power
equipment except between the hours,11of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00
p,.m. on any weekday- or between the hours of 8:00 a.m'. and,
6:00 p.m. on any Saturday. No construction activities are
allowed on any Sunday:
Optional:
Residential construction, repairs or Maintenance, including
lawn maintenance, conducted by. the homeowner or
occupant shall be permitted between the hours of 8: 00 a. in.
and 6:00p. in. on Sundays and public holidays.,.
b: Emergency work exempted.
(1) Noise created exclusively in the performance of emergency
work Shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.
Any person responsible for such emergency work shall take
all reasonable actions to minimize the amount of noise
generated by such work.
2
Memorandum
Re: Noise Ordinance
September m r 2012'
, be
p
2
The term "ewer -enc work" means' activities are _
g Y _
nOcessaiy to protect. of preserve lives or property from
imminent danger of loss or harm, including work that is
necessary restore store a public service or to eliminate a, p a 'bli c -
hazard: -, h
(3) '
Emergency declaration. When' conditions or circumstances _
within the boundaries of the city warrant, the City
Administrator (or designee) in its discretion may declare that E
a city emergency exists.,) Without limitation, such
emergencies may include or be the result of weather
phenomena. The declaration that a city emergency exists
shall have, the effect of waiving application of this article to
all activities reasonably related'to the emergency,
C. Exceptions.
(1)
Authority. The City Administrator or its designee shall have
the authority 'to grant exceptions from the requirements of
any provision of this subdivision.
� 2
O
Application. c An person seeking n exception shall file an
p
a ication;with the City Administrator
pp y r or its designee on a
form prescribed b the City. Information to be supplied in
i, p Y, y pp.
the application shall include but not be limited to the
following information:
(a) Statement of the dates and times during which the G
noise is proposed.
(b)' The location of the noise source.
(c) The nature of the noise source.
(d) Reasons why the exception is sought and identified
hardship.,f
(e) Steps taken to minimize the noise level.
(f) Other information as required by the City
Administrator.
3
Memorandum
Re: Noise Ordinance ,
27 September 2012
d. Enforcement.
:Enforcement duties. The City (1) Enforc y Administrators or its designees'
shall enforce the provisions of this subdivision -The City
Administrator or its designees may inspect private premises
other than private residences and shall make all reasonable _ E
efforts to prevent violations of this article.
(2) ` Nuisance violation. Any violation of this subdivision'shall
constitute a public nuisance.
(3)1, remedies., Violations of this subdivision shall be
subject to, the Administrative Enforcement provisions in, _
Chapter 104�of this Code. Noise violations shall be
classified as a Class A offense.
This item is on the agenda foi, discussion on 2 October. 2012,
Cc: Bill Joyner
Tim Keane -
Scott Zerby
r
i
j
r
i
4
ZO
X
X
x
M
O G
Z�
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
tp
Q
O
CL
x
,i
rn
o,
ra
E
a
X
x
x
x
m
rn'
c
0. 0
fo
N
rn )*
Ln �
:a
C
00
E
7C
00
E
E
N
ro
CO
Q
�
to
oo,
ftj
m
Q
x
r-I
n00
.
�
a
ro
x
X
M
�
(o
O
Q
O
mm
�rn
CL
x
x
x
x
x
Ln
LL
�o
i
m
mo
x
r,'
m
'p
rn
E
x
x
X
M
co
fl
x
x
N
N
00
rop.
x
X
x
x
X
X
x
f`
ui
:r
L
coo
c�II
O
=
�
�
N
0
m
J
p
Q)
C
f6
4-J
d
UI
C
O
�-
O
-0
L
C
d
C
O
U
4-
_
~
�`
C
(6
N
U
U
C
Q
C
L
C
C
�
C
>
(O
O
=
C
0
U
m
U
U
U
o
w
�
a
in
m
vi
n
vi
I-°