Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03-05-19 Planning Commission Meeting
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY MARCH 5, 2019 CALL TO ORDER 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 5, 2019 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 4. OTHER BUSINESS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. AGENDA ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE RIEDEL (Apr) MADDY (May) GORHAM (Mar) EGGENBERGER (tbd) GAULT (tbd) A) SETBACK VARIANCES FOR AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO (Refered back from City Council at their meeting of January 14, 2019) Applicant: Tim and Sally Butler Location: 6035 Spruce Hill Court B) LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND LOT AREA VARIANCE Applicants: David Boike and Chadd Schurr Location: 25875 Valleywood Lane and 5550 Meadowview Road C) MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Melanie Hermann Location: 24775 Glen Road D) DISCUSS POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO LIGHTING ORDINANCE E) 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE AND WORK PROGRAM 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. REPORTS Council Meeting Report Draft next meeting agenda Census 2020 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2019 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Davis, Eggenberger, Gorham and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; and Council Liaison Labadie Absent: None 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for February 5, 2019, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 15, 2019 Regular Meeting January 15, 2019 Joint Work Session with Park Commission Eggenberger moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2019, and the Joint Work Session with Park Commission Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2019, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission's role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission's responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non - binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. A. C.U.P. TO COLLOCATE ANTENNAS ON EXISTING MONOPOLE (continued from January 15, 2019) Applicant: Tower Engineering Professionals Location: 24283 Smithtown Road Planning Director Darling explained that this application was continued from the January 15, 2019 meeting. The applicant has proposed to add three telecommunication antennas, eight radio receiving units, and various other equipment with a new triangular array on the existing tower. She noted that they would like to add a new cabinet and equipment at the base of the tower. She reviewed the conditions and noted that staff recommends approval. She noted that staff recommends removing the canopy over the equipment from the plans. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2019 Page 2 of 8 Commissioner Riedel stated that the staff report included information on the osprey nest at the top of the tower. He asked whether the agreement with the applicant to complete installation prior to nesting season needed to be officially incorporated into the CUP. Planning Director Darling stated that the installation cannot happen during nesting season which gives them the option of installation either before or after nesting season. Charles Ryan, appearing on behalf of the applicant, explained that he is an attorney that is certified in Maryland but serves as the National Director of Zoning for Dish Wireless. He stated that they concur with the conditions requested by the staff. He explained the plans for having the Dish Wireless system in November. He stated that the osprey are protected under the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 and they have no intention of doing any of their installation work during nesting season because it would be very dangerous for the workers and has the potential to stress the nest. Commissioner Eggenberger asked about maintenance of the site and whether there would be someone assigned to this site to come back periodically to check its appearance. Mr. Ryan stated that Dish is unique because there are local Dish T.V. technicians that will be servicing and maintaining the facility on at least a monthly basis. He described a typical visit from the technician. Chair Maddy asked who owned the building and the antennae. Mr. Ryan stated that American Tower owns the tower and he believes Verizon owns the building. Chair Maddy asked who would be responsible for fixing the fence if it happened to be vandalized. Mr. Ryan stated that if it was the portion around their equipment, they would be responsible, but if it were around the tower compound, American Tower would be responsible. They are only able to install the slats around their equipment area. Commissioner Gorham asked about the canopy and how the accessory utility boxes would be supported. Mr. Ryan explained that the equipment is supported by steel posts around the deck platform that sits about four feet off the platform. Commissioner Gorham asked about the recommendation from staff that an eight -foot canopy would be too much but a four foot one would be acceptable. Director Darling replied that the canopy is proposed to be a corrugated metal and would be taller than the fence. Mr. Ryan explained that typically in the northern areas they install a canopy to protect the equipment because of ice fall. He noted that even if the City required the canopy to be removed, they would still install the small cabinet with some sort of protection from ice fall, but noted that it would be low profile. The electric service and meter would be attached to metal posts supports. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Chair Maddy opened Public Hearing for comment at 7:21 PM. There being no public comment, Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 7:21 PM. Chair Maddy suggested the Commission talk about the suggested conditions. Commissioner Riedel stated that he did not see the value in requiring the slats in the fencing and would like to see that condition removed. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he was neutral about having slats but does not want to see non - maintained slats. He agrees with the staff recommendation to remove the proposed canopy that has corrugated metal. He would like to make sure to include the condition that the installation does not happen during nesting season. Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the C.U.P. to Collocate Antennas on an Existing Monopole for Tower Engineering Professionals at 24283 Smithtown Road, subject to applying for all necessary building permits, that the steel canopy be removed from the proposed plan, and that the installation not occur during osprey nesting season. Motion passed 5/0. B. C.U.P. — ACCESSORY AREA OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Revision, LLC Location: 26820 Edgewood Road Planning Director Darling explained that this application is a request from Revision, LLC on behalf of property owners Troy and Linda Peifer to build a detached garage on the property located at 26820 Edgewood Road. She described the project and noted that the property owners plan to install rain gardens along the driveway to capture and slow stormwater run -off. She explained the staff recommendations and noted that staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Riedel asked if there were any other accessory structures, such as a dock, besides the attached garage and the proposed detached garage. Director Darling explained that there are no other buildings and noted that they are allowed to have a dock without impacting their two garages. Commissioner Riedel noted that may be something that needs discussion, because a dock counts as an accessory structure but does not count towards the maximum of three. He stated that he thinks the area of the dock should be included in the calculation of the 1,200 square feet allowed. Commissioner Gorham asked why this project is not subject to the City's tree preservation policy. Director Darling explained that it was because they are not re- developing the property. Commissioner Gorham asked if the City could put any kinds of restrictions or make any recommendation regarding trees. Director Darling noted that the applicant had included a tree plan as part of their application and noted that the Commission could make a recommendation that this CUP comply with the tree preservation ordinance and policy. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Commissioner Riedel noted that is not something the Commission has done in the past for this type of application. John Daly, Revision, LLC stated that he is available for questions and noted that the homeowners are present as well. Chair Maddy asked where the floor drains will drain. Mr. Daly stated that the floor drains will daylight and they have discussed it with staff to make sure that is acceptable. Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:30 PM. There being no comment, Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony at 7:30 PM. Eggenberger moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the C.U.P — Accessory Area over 1,200 Square Feet, for Revision, LLC, for property located at 26820 Edgewood Road, subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Motion passed 5/0. 4. OTHER BUSINESS A. PRE - APPLICATION SKETCH REVIEW Applicant: Pulte Homes Location: 25400 State Highway 7 (Vacant Parcel) Director Darling stated that this is a request from Pulte Homes for informal comments on a sketch plan for a townhouse development at 25400 State Highway 7. She stated that the concept includes thirty -eight townhouses on a cul -de -sac that would connect to Eureka Road. She described the neighborhood context and property information. She noted that if the applicant came forward with an official application, they would need a comprehensive plan amendment and the site would need to be rezoned to PUD. She stated that the applicant is Planning Commission and City Council thinks about the layout, density and likely flexibility before moving ahead with a formal application. Commissioner Riedel asked about the wetland buffer rule. Director Darling stated that the proposal for the plan is a 35 -foot wetland buffer and a 15 -foot structure setback to the buffer. The Commission discussed street width, existing wetland and possibilities to mitigate on site Commissioner Gorham asked about the possibility of extending City water to this area. Director Darling noted that the watermain is on Eureka and, in the future, could be extended through this development to Seamans Drive. Paul Heuer, Pulte Homes, 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Suite 670, Eden Prairie, gave a brief PowerPoint presentation explaining plans for the townhome development at 25400 State Highway 7. He noted that they are in the early stages and have a lot of work yet to do. He stated that they have not surveyed the property and have only completed a wetland delineation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2019 Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Riedel asked if the planned pond would be ornamental or for stormwater management. Mr. Heuer explained that it may be both but it will depend on the rules, soil types and elevation in the area. Commissioner Riedel cautioned that an ornamental pond may not serve the purpose of a stormwater pond. He noted that the City rules are more restrictive than the watershed district rules. Chair Maddy asked why Pulte Homes hadn't purchased the yellow home on the corner of the parcel, so the homes could be spread out more. Mr. Heuer stated that they were not sure if the City would support their plans so they didn't want to waste anyone's time looking for additional property, which is why they are coming in with this on a conceptual level. He stated that if there is interest and support from the City, they do plan to approach that property owner. Commissioner Gorham asked if there were architectural elements that may make these homes more suitable for an older, empty nester type couple rather than a younger market. Mr. Heuer stated that they have designed the homes to be versatile so there are options that people can choose such as a different style of tub that would work for an older client. Chair Maddy stated that although this is not technically a public hearing, he would like to allow members of the audience to give their feedback on the concept. Don Penn, 5910 Eureka Road, stated that he moved back to Minnesota ten years ago and chose the City because it did an amazing job back in the 1950s planning the community by having 1 -2 acre lots for single family homes. He stated that he chose not to move to Chanhassen because they have a lot of this type of medium density housing which he hates. He stated that he appreciates the builder having to abide by the City's rules but feels it is nothing more than a cash grab. He stated that he is also opposed to the permanent conversion of the City's wetland and forest with additional slab housing. He does not think this is consistent with the City's values or the community and doesn't think it is necessary. He explained some of the existing traffic issues with Eureka Road and noted that he feels adding homes to that particular corner would be a bad decision. He stated that if the City decides to move ahead with this project, he asked that a traffic light be installed at that corner. Ellen O'Brien, 25725 Smithtown Road, stated that she agrees with Mr. Penn. She stated that walking, riding a bike or pushing a stroller down Eureka Road or Smithtown Road is like taking your life into your own hands. She noted that she has almost been hit three times just getting her mail and has seen a child hit while riding his bike. She has contacted the Council, the police department and the mayor expressing concerns about the traffic issues in this area. She stated that she feels adding 38 additional homes to this road would be insane. She stated that they love the City and chose it for the single - family home on a large lot and does not want to see developments squeezed into areas that don't make sense for the City. Sandy Finke, 6060 Seamans Drive, stated that she has major concerns about these homes because many of them will be looking directly at her back yard. She stated that they have lived here for 29 years and moved to Shorewood for the large lots. She stated that there is wildlife in her backyard and the nearby area. She noted that adding a 38 -unit medium to high density CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2019 Page 6 of 8 development would change the whole area and higher density does not fit on this property. She stated that the proposed homes are three stories high which is higher than anything else in the area. She stated that she was on the traffic study committee for the golf course property when they were adding 144 homes. She stated that they had made a lot of recommendations to alleviate traffic concerns in the area and nothing has been done and now there is a proposal for an additional 38 homes without anything having been done. She reiterated that this area is already congested with existing traffic. She stated that she does not want the traffic study commission that she served on to have just been lip service. She stated that there is standing water throughout the summer on this property, so it is wetland. Eileen Anderson, Eureka Road, has lived here for three years. She asked the Commission to take into consideration the seriousness of adding this many new cars into the existing situation. She stated that she has almost been run over numerous times and has also contacted the City and the police department. She stated that she agreed with Ms. Finke that this area is wetland because it is often times wet. She stated that she loves the wetland and the wildlife in the area, but her main concern is safety and the reality of the existing traffic situation. She stated that she does not think this kind of higher density housing fits the character of the City at all. Dustin Alden, 25730 Smithtown Road, stated that he also has concerns about the current traffic situation on Eureka Road. He stated that even if the number of homes were reduced down to 25 that would still be too many vehicles to add. He stated that he has also almost been hit crossing the road. He stated that he does want to see them come in and bulldoze the property and remove all the trees to simply come in and plant saplings. He stated that he is within the demographic group that these homes are supposedly designed for and he feels that they will not sell easily. He stated that when the country club project came about, he thought it was a great idea, but he has driven through the area and almost all the trees are gone and every house is pretty much the same. He stated that kind of development is not "Shorewood" to him. Bob Finke, 6060 Seamans Drive, he asked the Commission to take a look at the single - family home to the north of this area and see how it is dwarfed by the townhomes. He stated that this development will be a single solid line of buildings about 120 feet away from his home. He stated that people like the large lots in Shorewood and he feels the new golf course homes are medium density because of the proximity of the homes to each other. He stated that he is not in favor of this project. Robbie Hill 5930 Seamans Drive, stated that he agrees with all the points that have been made and does not support this project. Don Penn, 5910 Eureka Road, stated that this, in his opinion, is precedent setting for the City. He cautioned the Commission that if this is allowed the City will be bombarded with other developers trying to pack in similar type of housing into tight spaces throughout the City. Chair Maddy closed the unofficial public testimony at 8:35 P.M. Planning Director Darling reminded the Commission that the applicant is looking for informal comments and noted that she had included some in the packet, which they may add to, delete, or amend. Commissioner Davis stated that she shares the grave concerns shared by the residents tonight regarding the traffic concerns along Eureka Road. She does not think this is a good use of this property because of the traffic. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he believes comments 3 through 14 are common sense and the two main questions are the first two items in the comment list of the packet. There was a Consensus of the Commission to agree to comments 3 through 14. Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed with the concerns about trees and with the amount of wetland and stormwater management necessary for the amount of homes proposed, and that it presents a challenge for just seven acres. Chair Maddy suggested that the Commission talk about density. He stated that this is currently zoned R -1A which is minimum density residential which requires 40,000 square foot lots. He stated that there aren't many re- developable lots left within the City and noted that he also has concerns about density and the traffic along Eureka Road. Commissioner Gorham stated that he thinks this is a great idea that is considering the wrong location. Commissioner Riedel stated that he agrees with the concerns raised about density and traffic in the area. He stated that he also has concerns about the height of these structures being so much higher than the surrounding homes. He asked if MnDot would accept a request for a stop light at Eureka Road. Planning Director Darling stated that it is unlikely without any kind of official traffic study documenting that traffic conditions would meet warrants. She stated that it would be very unlikely to have a traffic signal at this location as it is now. Mr. Heuer explained the different types of traffic warrants that have to be met before a traffic signal can go in. Commissioner Riedel asked if Pulte Homes was willing to pay the cost for a traffic study on Eureka Road. Mr. Heuer stated that if there was enough positive feedback on the project, they would be willing to spend the money for a traffic study. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the City could ask for a traffic study without committing to any of the rest of the items. Planning Director Darling stated that with any Comprehensive Plan amendment a traffic study would be required. She stated that to spend $15,000 on a traffic study when there is no support for the development would not be logical. Mr. Heuer stated that there is a lot he doesn't know about the site and the traffic situation. He noted that there might be a way to do some work behind the scenes without spending a lot of money, such as taking a look at the traffic study that was done for the Minnetonka Country Club project. The Commission discussed density requirements and Met Council density goals that are included in the Comprehensive Plan. There was a Consensus from the Commission that the density proposed is not acceptable and that the setback flexibility for the clustered development is acceptable. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2019 Page 8 of 8 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Eggenberger expressed his appreciation for the work that was done on the redesign of the City website. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Labadie reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council's January 14, 2019, and January 28, 2019 meetings (as detailed in the minutes for those meetings). She noted that she had attended the League of Minnesota Cities training session for experienced elected officials and noted that she would like to say, based on the stories that were shared by other councilmembers, she thinks the City has one of the best Planning Commissions around the State. Commissioner Gorham noted that he would also like to point out that the City has a great leader in Planning Director Darling. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated there are two minor subdivisions and a variance request that is coming back from the Council with new information for the March 5, 2019, Planning Commission meeting. Planning Director Darling announced that this will be Commissioner Davis's last meeting after serving for sixteen years in the City. There was a round of applause for Commissioner Davis. 7. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Davis seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 5, 2019, at 9:09 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director DATE: March 5, 2019 RE: Sally and Tim Butler LOCATION: 6035 Spruce Hill Court REVIEW DEADLINE: March 28, 2019 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R -1 A FILE NUMBER: 18.20 ORIGINAL REQUEST The applicants request a variance to place a pool and patio on the north side of their home. They propose to construct the pool 20 feet and the patio about 14 feet from the north property line where 30 feet is required for the pool and 50 feet is required for the patio. This item was originally heard for the November l `" ra 20, 2018 application (memo and minutes attached) and the Planning Commission unanimously �.. recommended denial of the application. The City Council heard the request at their December 10, 2018 and January 14, 2019 meetings (CAF reports ; and minutes attached). At the January 14, 2019 meeting, the City Council reviewed the request and sent the item back to the Planning Commission in order to ask if their recommendation to deny the variance would be different with the following supplemental information: 1. There is a 70 -foot drainage and utility easement that lies across the rear of the adjacent property to the north that would prevent any structures from being constructed, and increases the likelihood that the Page 2 trees would be preserved as a buffer between the two properties. This reduces the chances that the pool and the associated noise would be a nuisance to the adjacent neighbors. 2. The owners of the lot to the north ( Lennar Homes) are not willing to sell the applicants land to meet the setbacks. 3. Lennar Homes has submitted a letter indicating that they have no objection to the approval of variances to allow a pool to be constructed. 4. The pool contractor has submitted a letter indicating that they need a four -foot concrete apron around the pool to install the automatic pool cover. Notice of the application, including both the initial public meeting and this meeting, was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property. FINDINGS The City Council requests the Commission re- review the variance criteria considering the new information provided above and provide a recommendation especially considering the criteria for practical difficulty. The variance criteria (from section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations) are listed below. • Would the proposal be consistent with the intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? • Has the applicant proven practical difficulties? Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. • Does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner? • Is the practical difficulty unique to the property and not created by the property owner? • Would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? • Would the variance be based on economic considerations? • Would the variance impair adjacent properties in terms of impacting the supply of light or air, traffic congestion, fire or otherwise endanger public safety? • Would the variance be detrimental to public welfare, injurious to other lands or improvements in the neighborhood? • Would the variance be the minimum to alleviate the difficulty? If the Planning Commission finds the variance criteria are met, staff had originally proposed three conditions. The Council would like to know specifically if condition c. is necessary based on the information provided from the pool contractor. a. Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant should submit the final rain garden design indicating how the applicants propose to capture the run -off from the increase in impervious surface coverage (shown as 2,264 square feet); provide volume calculations; and ensure that the depth of the rain gardens does not exceed 1.2 feet for Type B soils, 0.8 feet for Type C soils, or .25 feet for Type D soils. b. At the footings inspections, the applicants shall expose their northerly corner monuments, stake and string the property line for verification that the construction would be consistent with any approved variance. Page 3 c. The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. Item c. Additional Information: The pool contractor has indicated that a four -foot concrete apron is necessary around the pool for proper installation of an automatic pool cover. While not required, many homeowners believe the cover provides additional safety for the owners where the fence provides safety for non - residents. Whether or not a cover is installed, a four -foot fence is required around the rear yard or pool area. Staff originally recommended condition c. to reduce the patio down to a pool apron at a minimum size for safe egress to ensure the variance action was the minimum action needed to alleviate the practical difficulty. In reviewing the above new information (particularly the additional easement on the adjacent property), if the Commission finds the applicants' request for patio variance meets the variance criteria, the Commission may amend or remove the condition. ATTACHMENTS Location map Email from Lennar representative Email from Pool Contractor Correspondence Received Applicants' narrative and plans Applicant's Powerpoint Presentation Submitted January 14, 2019 Minutes and CAF report from January 14, 2019 Minutes and CAF report from December 10, 2018 Minutes and Planning Memorandum from November 20, 2018 SAPIa iug\Pla iug Files \Applicatious\2018 Cmes\Butle VAR Spruce Hill CAPC memo 03 05 19.d- VNelsmeljr Sunnyvale La _0),, IWi i10 e�s HOPE , m Subject Cir l J^^ J+ %1 Minnetonka Country Club property N �I 0 300 600 1,200 O, Feet U, j� State Hi way 7 �gh ello_w. __stop O I RidgdgerPoint Cir Ana � 3 M�l Y i 1 Rampart_ C°co Ct `, > mood pr i s � m Marie Darling -14 From: Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 11:47 AM To: Tim - 220 Photography; Marie Darling Subject: RE: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question - Tim Butler Variance Request Marie, As we discussed this morning, Lennar would not be able to accommodate a lot line adjustment to meeting typical pool setbacks as request by Tim Butler. However, Lennar would not object to a variance reducing the needed pool and patio setbacks to our common lot line. Mark Sonstegard Director of Land Development Lennar Corporation marl<.sonstegard @lennar.com www.lennar.com Office: 952.229.6007 16305 36 Ave. N Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 11612n 19TW1N,C1T1ES.#1 BUI ah Tas�ea� YfLISFIOMEBUILDER'' This e -mail is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and contains information which may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the person to whom this e -mail is addressed, or an agent authorized by such person to receive this e -mail, you are hereby notified that any examination, copying, distribution or other unauthorized use of this e -mail is prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please notify me immediately at the e -mail address referenced above. From: Mark Sonstegard Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 11:20 AM To: 'Tim - 220 Photography' <tim @studio220photography.com> Subject: RE: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question Hi Tim, After review, the option of purchasing a portion of one or two of Lennar's lot to accommodate a set back for your proposed pool would not be a "go" on our end. However, Lennar would not object to a variance reducing the needed setback to our common lot line. Sorry we were not able to accommodate your initial request. Let me Know if you need anything in writing on Lennar not objecting to your requested variance. f Mark Sonstegard Director of Land Development Lennar Corporation marlc.sonstegard @ lennar.com www.lennar.com Office: 952.229.6007 16305 36 Ave. N Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 BUIL was H i ERUILDER "` L This e -mail is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and contains information which may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the person to whom this e -mail is addressed, or an agent authorized by such person to receive this e -mail, you are hereby notified that any examination, copying, distribution or other unauthorized use of this e -mail is prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please notify me immediately at the e -mail address referenced above. From: Tim - 220 Photography <tim @studio220photography.com> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 10:15 PM To: Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> Subject: Re: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question ** External email from: tim @studio220photography.com. If suspicious, forward to: NotifySecurity @lennar.com ** Hi Mark, I was confused on the date of the meeting. It is Monday the 14th (today, assuming you aren't reading this until the morning) Have you heard anything back on our request? thanks! - Tim (612) 978 -1714 On Jan 8, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Tim Butler <tim @studio220photography.com> wrote: Hi Mark, Have you heard anything on this? Our council meeting is on Thursday this week. Thanks! Tim Butler 612 - 978 -1714 On Dec 31, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard@lennar.com> wrote: Tim, Thanks for the additional info. I'll run it up the ladder and see how it goes. 2 <image001.jpg> Mark Sonstegard Director of Land Development Lennar Corporation mark.sonstegard @lennar.com www.lennar.com Office: 952.229.6007 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 <i m age002.j pg > <i m age003.j pg > <image004.png> This e -mail is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and contains information which may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the person to whom this e -mail is addressed, or an agent authorized by such person to receive this e -mail, you are hereby notified that any examination, copying, distribution or other unauthorized use of this e -mail is prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please notify me immediately at the e -mail address referenced above. From: Tim Butler <tim @studio220photography.com> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 12:09 PM To: Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> Subject: Re: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question ** External email from: tim @studio220photography.com. If suspicious, forward to: NotifySecurity @lennar.com ** Hi Mark, Thanks for the reply. Yes I'm working with Marie. She and one of the council members were the ones that recommended i explore this land purchase before the council makes a decision on the variance (which wouldn't be needed if i owned some of the easement). The setback is 30 feet for the pool and 50 for a patio. So in my specific case, I'd need to purchase about 35 feet back from my current property line. Any help or advice or options you can offer would be great. Thanks! Tim Butler Mobile: 612 - 978 -1714 Sent from my Whone... On Dec 31, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> wrote: Hi Tim Just a little more back ground, what was the reduced set back you were looking for in your variance? And were you working with Marie Darling? 3 <image001.jpg> Mark Sonstegard Director of Land Development Lennar Corporation mark.sonstegard @lennar.com www.lennar.com Office: 952.229.6007 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 <i mage002. jpg ><image003.jpg > <image004.png> This e -mail is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and contains information which maybe confidential or privileged, If you are not the person to whom this e -mail is addressed, or an agent authorized by such person to receive this e -mail, you are hereby notified that any examination, copying, distribution or other unauthorized use of this e -mail is prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please notify me immediately at the e -mail address referenced above. From: Tim - 220 Photography <tim @studio220photography.com> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 10:34 AM To: Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> Subject: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question ** External email from: tim @studio220photography.com. If suspicious, forward to: NotifySecurity @lennar.com ** Hi Mark, I was directed to you by Rick Packer with Gonyea, who I was directed to by Patrick Johnson on the Shorewood City Council. I live in a home that backs up to the former MTKA CC, which is now as you know being developed by Lennar and Gonyea. I applied for a variance to the setback ordinance in order to put a pool in my backyard. The council recommended I first contact the landowner behind my property & ask about a potential purchase of a portion of the land. I'm at 6035 Spruce Hill Ct, & the land directly to the north is a 70 ft non - conservation easement that's unusable. While it's unusable, I believe some of that easement (or maybe all of it) is part of one of the Lennar lots. Can you help me identify who to talk to about possibly purchasing some of that easement? Thanks! - Tim (612) 978 -1714 <image005 Jpg> 8960 Excelsior Boulevard Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Phone: 952 933 2255 Toll: 800 893 7771 Fox: 952 933 2259 February 11, 2019 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: Deck around Auto cover Custom Pools 14184 Norlhdale Boulevard Rogers, Minnesota 55374 Phone: 763 515 6305 Toll: 800 893 7771 Fox: 763 515 6306 Recessed Automatic Cover Boxes require a concrete deck surrounding the box in order to support the mechanism and the roll up tube when the cover is in the box. Custom Pools has found, especially in Minnesota with the frost, 4 feet of unencumbered deck behind ,and around the box for structure and for safety of the occupants using the pool. There are also several cities that require 4 feet of decking for access around the pool. Custom Pools recommends 4 feet of concrete decking around the auto cover box for the reasons stated. / I /Ll Thank, o- u. Virginia Mulvaney Custom Pools Inc. Web: CustomPoolslnc.com CURT AND LUANN AHART 6090 SPRUCE JANUARY 13, 2019 •. �•rr wl •" amamel M WE ARE NEIGHBORS OF TIM AND SALLY BUTLER WHO RESIDE AT 6035 SPRUCE HILL CT. WE ARE AWARE OF THEIR DESIRE TO INSTALL AN INGROUND POOL ON THEIR PROPERTY. WE FULLY SUPPORT THEM IN THIS ENDEAVOR. THEY ARE RESPECTFUL NEIGHBORS WHO POSSESS A STRONG COMMITMENT TO COMMUNITY AND FAMILY VALUES. WE CONSIDER THIS POOL A POSITIVE ENHANCEMENT AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD! Point 1 To Whom it May Concern, The variance we are requesting is in regards to the setback policy for the rear yard to the install an in ground pool. It has been a dream of ours to live in this community. I (Sally) was raised here as a child and my grandparents all lived on Lake Minnetonka. We moved to Shorewood in April of 2017. In the year and a half we have lived here we have fallen in love with the community, it has truly been a dream come true. Part of choosing the home we did was with the hope of creating our "forever home" to raise our four children. To us, that means having the space to live and an environment that provides entertainment and memories for us and our children. The first time we walked through this home we stood on the deck and thought what a beautiful space this would be for a pool, and we dreamed of creating our own oasis right in our back yard. When we purchased the home, we did not realize that a variance would be required to put in a pool. We understand that all ordinances are put in place for a reason, and we appreciate the intention of the city's policies and codes to help maintain the charm of this community. It is that very charm that is one of the reasons we have always wanted to live here. And our intention is not to detract from that charm, and we don't believe that putting a pool in our backyard would do so. If you view our property on Google maps, you will see that our home is surrounded in trees (my very favorite part of the property)! Our someday neighbors on the old Minnetonka Golf Course, will have no sight lines (as is now) to our property as there is a large area of mature trees dividing us. Our neighbors to the right and left also enjoy the same tree cover and any installation in our backyard would be practically unseen to them. It may be worth mentioning, we have their total support! And that brings me back to the initial point. We are asking for this variance so that we can create a great space for hosting neighborhood events, and provide a home that our kids friend's want to go to, and so that my family can build 20+ years of memories. For us, a pool would greatly fulfill that vision. As it stands right now, we are unable to put a pool in due to the set back policy. We ask that you examine our specific lot and consider allowing us an exception due to our particular lot and family wishes. We look forward to being lifelong members of this beautiful Shorewood community and it is our sincere belief that being able to put a pool in the backyard would actually enhance our experience in the community, and likely that of our neighbors as well, I am sure that it is not needed but we did go ahead and look at local set back policies and here are some of our findings below. The point of providing this information is not that we think Shorewood should consider changing it's policies, only that based on a comparison to other local cities' set back policies, we don't believe our request is outrageous or egregious. Thank you for your consideration. Chanhassen - Rear Yard = 10 Feet !' ; /tvr� � .ci.ci� nha e . tin. €sl c�catr� sitCenter/ View' 1806 r' Resdents- (3tticie- to-- Accessoi-_y 5trLi tg c, ?buld-- Victoria - Rear Yard = 5 Feet !ittps% /w �x�,�r.c`s. victor ia,trari.tisi,'DOCcliiieyitCe €miter /View /844 Excelsior - Rear Yard = 10 Feet htt ,/ /►i.brar ictiiieocie c;oiii,l MN /exc:e!sior, /codetilcocle of oi-ditiances`lrtc)deld P'I'1lC OOR APXEZO f R`I21 E Greenwood - Rear Yard = 15 Feet l tt} :ti'F =reenNvoodmi- .con1;A�ettical, site; s /' %7BC3 f? 400- �iOB8- 4799— A'77A- t ffi `, o /(S YI Variance Application Request Tim and Sally Butler 6035 Spruce Hill Court r I ' `' I 10 f "'A" � Excelsior, MN 55331 612 - 978 -1714 or 612-834-9906 Point 1 To Whom it May Concern, The variance we are requesting is in regards to the setback policy for the rear yard to the install an in ground pool. It has been a dream of ours to live in this community. I (Sally) was raised here as a child and my grandparents all lived on Lake Minnetonka. We moved to Shorewood in April of 2017. In the year and a half we have lived here we have fallen in love with the community, it has truly been a dream come true. Part of choosing the home we did was with the hope of creating our "forever home" to raise our four children. To us, that means having the space to live and an environment that provides entertainment and memories for us and our children. The first time we walked through this home we stood on the deck and thought what a beautiful space this would be for a pool, and we dreamed of creating our own oasis right in our back yard. When we purchased the home, we did not realize that a variance would be required to put in a pool. We understand that all ordinances are put in place for a reason, and we appreciate the intention of the city's policies and codes to help maintain the charm of this community. It is that very charm that is one of the reasons we have always wanted to live here. And our intention is not to detract from that charm, and we don't believe that putting a pool in our backyard would do so. If you view our property on Google maps, you will see that our home is surrounded in trees (my very favorite part of the property)! Our someday neighbors on the old Minnetonka Golf Course, will have no sight lines (as is now) to our property as there is a large area of mature trees dividing us. Our neighbors to the right and left also enjoy the same tree cover and any installation in our backyard would be practically unseen to them. It may be worth mentioning, we have their total support! And that brings me back to the initial point. We are asking for this variance so that we can create a great space for hosting neighborhood events, and provide a home that our kids friend's want to go to, and so that my family can build 20+ years of memories. For us, a pool would greatly fulfill that vision. As it stands right now, we are unable to put a pool in due to the set back policy. We ask that you examine our specific lot and consider allowing us an exception due to our particular lot and family wishes. We look forward to being lifelong members of this beautiful Shorewood community and it is our sincere belief that being able to put a pool in the backyard would actually enhance our experience in the community, and likely that of our neighbors as well, I am sure that it is not needed but we did go ahead and look at local set back policies and here are some of our findings below. The point of providing this information is not that we think Shorewood should consider changing it's policies, only that based on a comparison to other local cities' set back policies, we don't believe our request is outrageous or egregious. Thank you for your consideration. Chanhassen - Rear Yard = 10 Feet !' ; /tvr� � .ci.ci� nha e . tin. €sl c�catr� sitCenter/ View' 1806 r' Resdents- (3tticie- to-- Accessoi-_y 5trLi tg c, ?buld-- Victoria - Rear Yard = 5 Feet !ittps% /w �x�,�r.c`s. victor ia,trari.tisi,'DOCcliiieyitCe €miter /View /844 Excelsior - Rear Yard = 10 Feet htt ,/ /►i.brar ictiiieocie c;oiii,l MN /exc:e!sior, /codetilcocle of oi-ditiances`lrtc)deld P'I'1lC OOR APXEZO f R`I21 E Greenwood - Rear Yard = 15 Feet l tt} :ti'F =reenNvoodmi- .con1;A�ettical, site; s /' %7BC3 f? 400- �iOB8- 4799— A'77A- Mound - Rear Yard = 15 Feet i ttv!rr' v v v.c tvc�1110Lmcwcom ye tical /kites /'N)7B2E4C 2OC - A79 -4517-A724-- QCB4 8r�t_Q�tl 3,j 1°i %7I / �dc � l5!` winl,lnil t' F'cr€�I�,Hot I'LlEy��dr — - -- Wayzata - Rear Yard = 10 Feet lit Cps //�vyvw.�va ztiw iew iti -Pool In fonn ation-PDF Tonka Bay - Rear Yard = 8 Feet l tt �.itw�,vIv.citvoftonkabay, net' vet -tic,)./;Sites / °/'07B4ACtB59 -6s C4 EE 4132 -8OD2- 7FQ9E6 l OBC;i31' °i 71),/Li kxs i s /SAKI_1V1It4;LNG POOLS Elr"oNDOUT 9- ,161p(t Deephaven - (If I understand correctly for a lot si nilar to our lot size) Rear Yard = 15 Feet i s:i,1 w .ci gL _(?havens rg� vet°ticai /sites /(r� -, RA E %LE,29 FEA2- 477B -97C I - 913C`;7955 C'E41° i;�t lE acfs," et�gk 1 =ortn. cUt Point 2 - A - We believe the our intended use of the property is very reasonable, and the only nonconformity of our proposed use is a variance on the rear setback distance. Approving the variance would not have any negative impact on neighbors or a significant impact to the amount of publicly visible green space on the property. B - We did not build the house, thus the circumstances were not created by us. Due to the location of the house being set deep on the lot, the deck and the location of the well, the proposed location of the pool is the only location that will work. C - The variance if approved would not negatively alter the essential character of the locality. Actually we believe if approved the variance would enhance the character of the property and due to the proposed location of the pool would do so while minimizing visibility of the structure from the street and to the neighboring homes. Point 3 — This is not based on economic considerations. Point 4 — This variance approval will not have any impact on sunlight to other properties, congestion on public streets, or increase the danger of fire or public safety. Point 5 — This variance approval and resulting construction will not have any impact on the public welfare or other lands in the neighborhood. Point 6 — This variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties for the proposed pool /construction project in the proposed location on the property. — / \~ 1p LF =988.4 EXISTING HOUSE '-+ 20.3 00 EXISTING ` . BENCHMARK - -- — `Q L�- HARDCOVER EXISTING = MVU3[ 3150 3F DECK = 590 ' DRIVE = 174O SF FPAT03Tp = 450 3F TOTAL = 5930 3F / 1*.8% LEGAL DESCRIPTION: U � LOT 6, BLOCK 1, 0zRVC[ / HILL. HENNEP|N CO, MN. 0 20 40 80 ADDRESS, 8035 SPRUCE HILL COURT sHonEWOo[\ MN SCALE IN FEET P0# 33-117-23-34-0025 *w, ~ EXISTING epoT ELEVATION. LOT AREA = 40065 SF/ 0.92 AC *998u) = pmupnnso apur sLsvAnow - o/nccr/ow SURFACE mnmw^os cox = oxmnLsysnco ovsn*Awo n*L = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE ~- oFs = oAnAoc rLone susvATmw Tpc = TOP or FOUNDATION ELEVATION SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANCE PER � \ Lrs = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION \ | (111101, SHOREWOOD Shorewood City Leadership: "The City of Shorewood boasts the greatest Planning Commission, City Council and Mayor in the known world. These groups are comprised of highly capable, smart, good looking, funny, and very reasonable residents of Shorewood. They are a pillarof our community.' - Tim Butler Shorewood Resident City Council Advocate Planning Comrr>ission Fan `; f Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a variance to allow the Butler Family at 5035 Spruce Hill Ct to construct a pool in their back yard? Butler Family Perspective: Yes Spruce Hill Ct Neighbors Perspective: Yes City Council Perspective: Hopefully... Yes Submitted by the Applicant for the City Council meeting on 1/14/2019. 1 — Overview 2 — Homeowner Application Letter 3 — Policy Consideration & Background Summary 4 — Homeowner Summarized Response 5 — Policy Consideration — Findings of the Planning Commission — Variance Approval 6 — Summary of Planning Commission Findings / Reason for Denial 7 — Homeowner Response to the Planning Commission Findings — Variance Approval 8 — Homeowner Response to Planning Commission Recommended Conditions 9 — Homeowner Conclusion 10 —Thank You and Q &A 11 —Appendix & Attachments - Neighborhood Support - League of MN Cities Reference Information - Property Photos & Diagrams - Patio Sizing Expert Recommendations - Neighboring City Setback Requirements for reference 2 Letter Provided as supplement... Here is the text written by Sally Butler: The variance we are requesting is in regards to the setback policy for the rear yard to the install an in ground pool. It has been a dream of ours to live in this community. I (Sally) was raised here as a child and my grandparents all lived on Lake Minnetonka. We moved to Shorewood in April of 2017. In the year and a half we have lived here we have fallen in love with the community, it has truly been a dream come true. Part of choosing the home we did was with the hope of creating our "forever home" to raise our four children. To us, that means having the space to live and an environment that provides entertainment and memories for us and our children. The first time we walked through this home we stood on the deck and thought what a beautiful space this would be for a pool, and we dreamed of creating our own oasis right in our back yard. When we purchased the home, we did not realize that a variance would be required to put in a pool. We understand that all ordinances are put in place for a reason, and we appreciate the intention of the city's policies and codes to help maintain the charm of this community. It is that very charm that is one of the reasons we have always wanted to live here. And our intention is not to detract from that charm, and we don't believe that putting a pool in our backyard would do so. If you view our property on Google maps, you will see that our home is surrounded in trees (my very favorite part of the property)! Our someday neighbors on the old Minnetonka Golf Course, will have no sight lines (as is now) to our property as there is a large area of mature trees dividing us. Our neighbors to the right and left also enjoy the same tree cover and any installation in our backyard would be practically unseen to them. It may be worth mentioning, we have their total support! And that brings me back to the initial point. We are asking for this variance so that we can create a great space for hosting neighborhood events, and provide a home that our kids friend's want to go to, and so that my family can build 20+ years of memories. For us, a pool would greatly fulfill that vision. As it stands right now, we are unable to put a pool in due to the set back policy. We ask that you examine our specific lot and consider allowing us an exception due to our particular lot and family wishes. We look forward to being lifelong members of this beautiful Shorewood community and it is our sincere belief that being able to put a pool in the backyard would actually enhance our experience in the community, and likely that of our neighbors as well. 3 Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a variances to allow a pool in a rear yard? Background Summary: See attached memorandum for detailed background on this item The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. Specifically, they found that although a pool is a reasonable use of residential property, the request is not unique to this property, the property owner has other options to put the pool into the side yard (although that would require capping and installation of a new well), and that the request is not the minimum action necessary to alleviate the difficulty. One of the issues discussed is whether or not the reduced setback would affect the lot to the north when the home is constructed. During the meeting, staff provided a copy of the grading plan, (upper right), but did not have access to the recorded plat (lower right). Due to the presence of a larger than typical drainage and utility easement (70 feet), the future property owners would not be able to place structures in close proximity to the property line and hence would have a buffer to a pool with reduced setbacks. The trees that currently exist in the area are not protected by conservation easements. Options: Approve, deny or modify the resolution. if the Council determine that the variance criteria are met, staff recommend thatthe conditions included in the Planning Commission staff report should be included as conditions of approval. They include the following: • Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant should submit the final rain garden design indicating how the applicants propose to capture the run -off from the increase in impervious surface coverage (shown as 2,264 square feet); provide volume calculations; and ensure that the depth of the rain gardens does not exceed 1.2 feet for Type B soils, 0.8 feet for Type C soils, or .25 feet for Type D soils. • At the footings inspections, the applicants shall expose their lots corner monuments, stake and string the property line for verification that the construction would be consistent with any approved variance. • The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. 0 There are 2 positions of the Planning Commission that we do not agree with. 15t - Policy Consideration: Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance request, and we do not agree. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. We do not agree that the denial is the appropriate recommendation, and have prepared a written justification in defense of our position. It is our perspective is that our position is justified and we should be granted the variance_ 2nd — Options (should the Council decide to approve the variance request): The planning commission has made 3 recommendations should the council decide to grant the variance request. And we do not agree with 1 of the 3 recommendations being required as a condition of approval. The 31d recommended condition of approval - The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. We do not agree that this condition of approval should be placed on the homeowner in the case that the council approves the variance. It is our position that reducing the patio to this size places a restrictive limitation on using the patio space and is an unreasonable condition of approval. The city allows up to 33% of Impervious Surface coverage, and currently we have 14.8% Coverage. If the variance is approved as is, based on the plans provided by the landscape architect, our Impervious Surface coverage would only increase to 20.45 %, which is still well below the city's allowed coverage area. Thus, we believe the requested patio size is very reasonable, and any reduction in the proposed size would have no significant impact on the Impervious Surface coverage on the property. Variance Analysis: Should the City grant a variances to allow a pool in a rear yard? The zoning regulations allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2. b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets for criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria as follows: 1. Intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: Planning Commission Perspective: The property owner would continue to use the property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district's allowed uses. Butler Family Perspective: We agree. 2. Practical Difficulties: Practical difficulties include there factors, all three of which must be met. Staff Finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. A — REASONABLE: Planning Commission Perspective: While a pool is reasonable use on a reasonable use on a residential property, staff finds that the applicants already have a reasonable use of the property without a pool. Butler Family Perspective: We do NOT agree (explanation to follow). B — SELF CREATED: Planning Commission Perspective: The property owners did not create the difficulty, which is related to the irregular shape of the lot. There is no conforming location for a pool on the property. Butler Family Perspective: We agree. C — ESSENTIAL CHARACTER: Planning Commission Perspective: The pool is not likely to alter the essential character of the locality for the existing neighbors, as the homes on both sides of the property are located well away from the proposed pool. However, the City has used setbacks to keep active uses towards the center of the property to reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Butler Family Perspective: We agree. A 3_ Economic Considerations: - Planning Commission Perspective: The applicants have not proposed the variance based on economic considerations. The pool is proposed to make the home more usable for their family. Butler Family Perspective: We agree. d. Impact on Area: - Planning Commission Perspective: The property owners are not proposing anything that would impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire or endanger public safety, or increase the impact on adjacent streets. - Butler Family Perspective: We agree. 5. Impact to Public Welfare and Other Improvements: - Planning Commission Perspective: The applicants' proposal is unlikely to impact or impair adjacent property values or the public welfare. - Butler Family Perspective: We agree. 6. Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty: - Planning Commission Perspective: Because the property owners have reasonable use of the property without a pool, staff finds the action is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. - Butler Family Perspective: We do NOT agree (explanation to follow), In Summary, there are two areas of disagreement with the Findings of the Planning Commission as related to the denial of the variance application... 2. Practical Difficulties: Practical difficulties include there factors, all three of which must be met. Staff Finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. A — REASONABLE: Planning Commission Perspective: While a pool is reasonable use on a reasonable use on a residential property, staff finds that the applicants already have a reasonable use of the property without a pool. Butler Family Perspective: We do NOT agree. 6. Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty: Planning Commission Perspective: Because the property owners have reasonable use of the property without a pool, staff finds the action is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Butler Family Perspective: We do NOT agree. Findings /Recommendation: Staff finds the applicants have not met all three tests for Practical Difficulties nor have they shown the request is the minimum action necessary as they have reasonable use of the property without a pool. Consequently, staff recommends denial of the variance. - Do we agree that the stated justification in this statement that we do not meetthe "Minimum Action Necessary 1 Minimum to Alleviate" consideration because we "have reasonable use of the property without a pool "? In other words, based on the written statement of the Staff, the Staff relies on their assessment that we do not meet the Reasonable Use consideration to assert that we do not meet the Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty consideration, as their stated justification for stating we do not meet the Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty consideration is solely based on their finding that we already have Reasonable Use of the property without a pool. - Do we agree that the staff's finding related to not meeting the Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty consideration is based on their finding that we do not meet the Reasonable Use consideration? IF we agree that the Staff has based their justification for finding we do not meet the Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty consideration on their assessment that we do not meet the Reasonable Use consideration, then we contend that the 'Reasonable Use" factor is the only basis for which the the Staff has recommended the denial of our variance request- - Do we agree? On the assumption that following a logical path, we do agree to this point... Consequently, the entire basis of the proposal to deny the variance request is based on the Planning Commission assessment that we do not meet the 3 Factor test for Practical Difficulties, and this is based on the Planning Commission assessment that while we meet 2 of the factors, that we do not meet the Reasonable Use factor. However.... We do NOT agree that we fail to meet the Reasonable Use factor. 9 Our Perspective: - We believe we DO indeed meet the Reasonable Use factor, and contend that the Planning Commission assessment that we do not meet this factor, is based on an interpretation of the Reasonable Use test that is not in harmony with The League of Minnesota Cities application of this particular standard. From the League of Minnesota Cities— Information Memo - Land Use Variances - 11/15/17 hftps: / /www, Imc.orgfniedia /docu ment/1 !la nd useva riances.pdf ?in li ne =true The 1St factor in the 3- Factor Test under the "Practical Difficulties" Standard is the Reasonable Use Factor — 1. Reasonableness - The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. it does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. CONCLUSION: Based on the information we have provided, we believe there is a logical path of reasoning that concludes that we have met all the standards for the approval of the variance, including having passed or met all 3 factors of the 3 factor test for Practical Difficulties, and therefore we do not believe that the Planning Commission or City Council has provided sufficient justification to make a decision to deny our variance request. 10 The Planning Commission recommended 3 conditions for consideration should the City Council decide to approve the variance. We do not agree that one of the recommended conditions was a reasonable condition to impose as a condition of approval. The 31d recommended condition of approval - e The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. We do not agree that this condition of approval should be placed on the homeowner in the case that the council approves the variance. It is our position that reducing the patio to this size places a restrictive limitation on using the patio space and is an unreasonable condition of approval. The city allows up to 33% of Impervious Surface coverage, and currently we have 14.8% Coverage. If the variance is approved as is, based on the plans provided by the landscape architect, our Impervious Surface coverage would only increase to 20.45 %, which is still well below the city's allowed coverage area. Thus, we believe the requested patio size is very reasonable, and any reduction in the proposed size would have no significant impact on the Impervious Surface coverage on the property. 11 12 13 Dear Council, We are writing a letter in full support of the request the Butler's have made regarding their planned pool and accompanying landscaping on their property at Spruce Hill Ct. Over the past 2 years, we have gotten to know the Butler family extremely well. Throughout the years, our entire street has gathered at the Butler home. We have the utmost respect for rules and regulations regarding safe building in our community as well as sympathy for the position that the council is in when striking a balance when evaluating requests for variances. Ideally, building codes are intended to allow all members of our community to safely enjoy their property. The slight departure from the literal requirement of a pool deck ending so many feet of the property line, though well intended, should be allowed in this instance. This proposed professionally constructed project within a reasonable distance of the property line, doesn't abut directly another occupied lot, impact any neighbor's enjoyment of their property, or disrupt the investment we have all made in Shorewood in any way. In fact, it is more likely to be a community gathering place and allow the entire neighborhood to better enjoy the community. The very fabric of an excellent and desired neighborhood is the ability to form connections, build community, and enjoy and improve on our property. Not allowing a reasonable variance which allows the Butler's to improve and enjoy their small slice of Shorewood would be a mistake which may impact the whole neighborhood. With this in mind, we respectfully submit that the proper course of action is to allow the variance. Respectfully, Michael and Charity Dunn 6100 Spruce Hill Ct. Shorewood 14 To the Shorewood City Council, We are two of Sally and Tim Butler's neighbors on Spruce Hill Court. We live directly across the street. Our neighborhood is a place focused on family. You can often find some or all of the neighbors enjoying a bbq in the summer months or bonfire when it is chilly. We area community that helps each other out; together we will clean up after storms, watch each other's kids, and be a helping hand. The children in this neighborhood are being raised to be kind to each other. They love playing together. We want to continue to keep the kids playing in our,cul -du -sac and in our yards as long as possible for many years to come. When Sally and Tim shared their idea of digging a pool, Clint and I were in full support. We continue to supporttheir dream of creating their ideal home here on Spruce Hill Ct. Their large lot with the dense tree border lends itself to plenty of green space even while adding a private pool in back. The steep creek -bed (and surrounding woods) along the back of their yard also provide a natural barrier of privacy. We hope that they will receive your approval to move ahead with creating that dream spot in our Shorewood neighborhood. Thank you for your time, Melissa Talmo Melissatalmo - gmail.com 6060 Spruce Hill Ct Shorewood, Mn 55331 952 -239 -1363 15 No issue from me.., just keep the cooler full. TIMOTHY HAUGEN "Tim -As a neighbor that directly faces your home, I have no concerns and am definitely in favor of you being allowed to put a pool in if you desire to. In my opinion, a variance is a very reasonable request due to two factors: the large size of your property overall (- 1 acre) and the significant separation (via ravine and woods) between the north end of your property line and nearest allowable spot to build on the lot north of you. Let me know if you need anything else. Regards, Clint Talmo 6060 Spruce Hill Court I'm all in- literallylr2 Luann Ahart "I support. Can't make it, men's bible study fellowship tonight." CURTAHART 16 From the League of Minnesota Cities— Information Memo - Land Use Variances - 11/15/17 htips : / /www.Imc.org /media /documenUl /la ndusevariances.pdf ?inline =true Per this information memo, in 2011 the State of Minnesota changed it's 3- Factor test from "Undue Hardship" to "Practical Difficulties ". "Undue hardship" was the Standard of the three - factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. After a long and contentious session working to restore city variance authority, the final version of HF 52 supported by the League and allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature. The 3- Factor Test under the "Practical Difficulties" Standard are — 1. Reasonableness -The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. 2. Uniqueness - The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. 3. Essential character The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. 17 From the League of Minnesota Cities — Information Memo -Land Use Ordinance Mistakes —5/2/18 httos : / /www.imc.ora /media/document/1 / landuseordinancemistakes .pdf ?inline =true Per this Information Memo, the League of Minnesota Cities asserts that... Many zoning ordinances were drafted with provisions for granting variances that may differ from the standard provided in the Municipal Planning Act. Under the Act, variances are permitted departures from strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property if the enforcement would cause the owner "practical difficulties." 'Practical difficulties" is the legal standard set forth in state law. (in 2011, the legislature changed the name of the state standard from undue hardship to practical difficulties.) Minnesota cities must apply the state statutory practical difficulties standard when considering applications for variances. The state statute specifically defines practical difficulties to mean all of the following: • the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance, • the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and • the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. In Summary, the city of Shorewood, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, have a legal obligation to apply the state statutory practical difficulties standard. And that standard as it relates to Reasonable Use is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, NOT that the property owner already has reasonable use of the property without approval of the variance. Thus, the planning commission & city council do not have the liberty of redefining the Reasonable Use standard and relying on that as a reason to deny the variance application. Per the last Council meeting when this variance request was discussed, there was a recurring commentary from the council regarding the concept of a pool being an "amenity" as opposed to a "structure ". The insinuation was that because some of the council perceived the pool to be an "amenity" and not a "structure ", it was not as important and perhaps didn't warrant the same consideration as if the variance request was to build a structure. It was my contention at the time, and it remains today, that there is no distinction between an "amenity" and a "structure" in the city code of ordinances or the comprehensive plan. Because of this, the council does not have any legitimate basis on which to draw the distinction between a structure and an amenity, as neither the Code of City Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan draw this distinction. Thus, the argument in this context that the variance should not be approved on the basis that a pool is perceived to be an "amenity" is not a valid justification for the denial. Shorewood, MN —City Code of Ordinances hftp://Iibra!y.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Minnesota/shorewood mn/ cityofshorewoodminnesotacodeofordina nces ?f= templates$fn= default .htm$3.0$vid= amlegal:shorewood mn - The words "amenity" or "amenities" appears only 3 times in the entire document, all in Chapter 1201 Zoning Regulations, and none of them in relation to Variances Shorewood, MN - 2040 Comprehensive Plan — Draft November 2018 http• / /ci shorewood.mn.us/ Shorewood %20Comp %20PIan %20Nov %202018 %20Revision.pdf - The words "amenity" or "amenities" appears only 10 times in the entire 649 page document, none of them in relation to Variances 19 /�� ��� v Ak4 � � �•. � Lek v'k r`� � -i — �. y i 20 21 70 Foot Easement If I owned the property in this box, we would not require a variance to construct a pool in the proposed location Proposed location of Pool 22 The property is mostly surrounded by trees Northwest Corner East Side Yard 23 Again referencing the League of MN Cities — Information Memo — Land Use Variances — 11/15/17... The `Conditions` — A city may impose a condition when it grants a variance so long as the condition is directly related and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of excess height. We acknowledge that `a condition' of a reduced patio size is directly related to the variance request, and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. However, we do not agree that `the condition' proposed in this case is appropriate. The example provided in the Land Use Variance memo by the league of MN cities highlights an example of granting a variance to exceed an applicable height limit, and the conditions attached should relate to 'mitigating the effect of excess' height. To apply that same standard to our proposed variance, the proposed conditions should `mitigate the effect of excess' patio area. Our position is that the proposed patio area is not `excess', rather it is reasonable_ And because what we have proposed is reasonable, then there should be no condition of approval related to a reduced patio size. Our position in regards to the condition to `reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request`, is that we are proposing reasonable patio sizes on each side, as follows- 1 — North Side: 5 feet is a reasonable patio size on the north side of the pool. 36 inches is the minimum size allowed by code, but that size does not even provide enough space for 2 people to safely walk side by side next to the pool. If 36 inches is the minimum size required, it is our assertion that 60 inches would not constitute 'excess'. 2 — East & West Sides: Our intention on these sides is to use one or both for patio tables. A reasonable use of a pool and patio in the backyard includes a reasonable use of patio furniture. We have proposed 12 feet, which is not in excess, but rather a very reasonable proposal. Expert patio sizing recommendations validate our assertion. Landscaping Network — Recommends 2 to 3 feet of walkaround space on each side of patio furniture. Common patio table for 6 is at least 3 or 4 feet. - https:// www.l andscaRingnehvork .com/patios /size.html Better Homes & Gardens — Recommends a patio size of 12x12 for a dining area for 6 to 8 people. We have a family of 6. - https: / /tivvvw.bhg.com/home- improvement !patio /designsfhow4o- choose- patio -size/ Concrete Network — A 48" round table can seat 6 -8 people. The minimum patio size to accommodate a 48" round table is 10 feet 6 inches. This allows enough space to pull out chairs, but not much walk around space. Use 12 -14 feet as a minimum patio size allotment for each 48" round table you intend to accommodate. - Patio Size — https: / /myAv,concretgnet work .com /concrete - patio /size.htmi 24 We reviewed other local setback policies and here are some of our findings below. The point of providing this information is not that we propose Shorewood consider changing It's policies, only that based on a comparison to other local cities' setback policies, we don't believe our request is excessive. Chanhassen -Rear Yard= 10 Feet mss: /Av nnv. ci.c hanhassen. m n_ us /DocumentCenterN!etiv/1806 /Residents- Guide -to- Accessory -Struc tures?bidld= Victoria - Rear Yard = 5 Feet https: /Avmv.ci.victoria_mn. us /DocumentCenterMew /844 Excelsior -Rear Yard = 10 Feet https: / /Iibrary.niunicode.com)MN /excelsior /codes /code of ordinances ?nodeld= PTiICOOR APXEZO ART21FE Greenwood - Rear Yard = 15 Feet http: / /areenwoodmn.com/ vertical / sitesl% 7BC372340D- AOB8- 479D- A77A- 7A2C96A5C421 %7D /uploads /Chapter 11 Zonino.odf Mound - Rear Yard = 15 Feet https : /Avww.cilyofmound.comtvertical /sites / ° /a7B2E4C20C8 -5A79- 4517- A724- CB4891DAF341 ° /a7D /uploads /Swimming Pools Hot Tubs.pdf Wayzata - RearYard = 10 Feet https: /Avww.way7ata.org/Doc umentCenterNiew /257 /Swimming -Pool- information -PDF Tonka Bay - Rear Yard = 8 Feet https : /Avww.cityoffonkabay, net /verticauSites / %7B4AOB5943 -C4EE- 4132- 80D2- 7FDgE610BCBF %7D /uploads /SWIMMING POOLS HANDOUT 9- 16(1).pdf Deephaven - (if I understand correctly for a lot similar to our lot size) - Rear Yard = 15 Feet https: /Avww.cityofdeephaven.org/ vertical / sites/°/ a78AIF4EA29- FEA2- 477B- 97Cl- 913C7955ACF4 %7D /uploads/getback Form.pdf 25 A. Variances to Pool Setbacks at 6035 Spruce Hill Court for Sally and Tim Butler Planning Director Darling gave an overview of past discussions by the Planning Commission and the Council regarding the variances to pool setbacks at 6035 Spruce Hill Court. She stated that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. She noted that this item had been discussed at the December 10, 2018 Council meeting where it was continued to allow the applicant time to inquire about purchasing additional land to the north. She stated that Lennar, who owns the land to the north has indicated that they are not able to sell a portion of the property, but have no objection to the variance for the pool on the property. She stated that she has written up resolutions for both approval and denial based on the Council's previous discussion. She reviewed the recommended conditions if the Council chooses to approve the variance. Tim Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, asked if the Council had a chance to review the twenty -five- page presentation that he had prepared for the meeting. He read aloud a letter from his wife explaining their request for a variance in order to have a pool at their home. He stated that the decision by the Planning Commission to deny the variance was before there was knowledge that the seventy -foot easement behind their property is a non - conservation drainage and utility easement. He stated that they also did not know that Lennar would not sell the property to them. He stated that they do not agree with the recommendation by the Planning Commission to deny the variance nor do they agree with the third condition if the Council approves the request, for a three - foot -wide patio space. He explained their reasons for not agreeing with the Planning Commission recommendation. He reviewed the language from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding practical difficulties and reasonable use. He stated that the proposed three -foot patio space is not reasonable and noted that they plan to only increase the impervious surface from 14.6 percent to 20.45 percent. Councilmember Sundberg asked if the adjoining neighbors were all in support of the variance. Mr. Butler stated that he has letters from all of them expressing their support. Mayor Zerby noted that the new information is that Lennar is also in support of the variance. Luann Ahart 6090 Spruce Hill Court, stated her support of both the variance for the pool and the patio. Councilmember Labadie stated that even though the neighbors support the variance request, this is not a small variance request. Sally Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, expressed her frustration with this process because the point of a variance is to ask for an exception to the rule, which is what they are doing. She stated that they have the complete support of their neighbors. She stated that they are simply asking for an exception to put their pool in a location where nobody will see it. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she was just about to ask the same question because she thought variances were exceptions to the rules and do not set precedents. Planning Director Darling agreed that this was correct. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2019 Page 7 of 15 Councilmember Sundberg stated that based on that information, she feels the Council should consider granting the variance and factor in all the information. She stated that because all of the neighbors, including Lennar Homes approves of the request and there is a pretty significant buffer with the trees, she explained that she is inclined to approve the request. Mayor Zerby confirmed that the dense tree coverage to the north was on Lennar Homes property. He asked if there was anything that would prevent them from cutting the trees down. Planning Director Darling replied no but noted that this was in a drainage easement so it is unlikely the trees will be removed, since a structure cannot be placed in this area. Councilmember Labadie stated that she puts a lot of faith in the findings of the Planning Commission and their recommendation was unanimous to deny the request. She stated that staff had also recommended denial of the request. Councilmember Siakel stated that her understanding of a variance is that there needs to be a demonstration of a hardship and to her, being unable to put in a pool is not a hardship. She stated that she feels this is a bit about setting a precedent. Mr. Butler read a portion of a memo from the League of Minnesota Cities dated May 2, 2018 titled Land Use Ordinance Mistakes that calls for "practical difficulties ", not "undue hardship" and explained that hardship is no longer the test of whether to grant a variance or not. He stated that he believes that the City is misapplying the standard and he is asking that they apply it according to the League of Minnesota Cities standards and State laws. Councilmember Siakel asked for City Attorney to Keane to weigh in with his opinion. City Attorney Keane stated that the test that the City applies to variance requests is highly subjective and there is latitude and discretion in determining the reasonableness of the use as well as the reasonableness of departure from the standard. Mr. Butler noted that the Planning Commission has stated that the use of a pool is a reasonable use of the property. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the Planning Commission was aware of the seventy -foot drainage and utility easement directly behind the property. Planning Director Darling stated that the Planning Commission did not know that there was a drainage and utility easement behind the property. Councilmember Johnson stated that, in his opinion, that piece of information is a pretty big deal and suggested that perhaps it should go back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Zerby noted that he feels it is in the Council's court now and should move forward. He stated that he is in favor of approving the variance because of the easement, the support of the neighbors, and the letter from Ms. Butler that included the setback information from other cities. Councilmember Labadie stated that she agrees with Councilmember Johnson that the fact that the Planning Commission was not aware of the drainage and utility easement behind the property is huge. Mayor Zerby noted that the Planning Commission also did not know that the Lennar Homes was in support of it because they will eventually have to sell the lot behind the Butlers. Councilmember Labadie agrees that the Council should deal with this request tonight and not kick it back to the Planning Commission. Sundberg moved, Zerby seconded to approve the Variance Requests to Pool Setbacks at 6035 Spruce Hill Court for Sally and Tim Butler subject to the conditions in the staff report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2019 Page 8 of 15 Aaron Lutz, explained that he lives in Tonka Bay and is the pool contractor working with the applicants. He noted that the Butlers would like to have an automatic pool cover which needs more than three feet of patio cover for this to be secure and if they decide to put in a diving board, that will also need to be mounted in more than three feet of concrete. He stated that the minimum would be about four feet to have the automatic cover box secure. He stated that on the north side, the concrete could be brought down to three feet. Councilmember Labadie stated that she agreed that a pool cover is a safety issue, but does not think a diving board falls into that category. Councilmember Johnson stated that he believes the width of the walking surface next to the pool can also cause a safety issue if it is too narrow. Mr. Lutz explained that both Edina and Minneapolis require a minimum of four feet of concrete around pools for safety purposes. Councilmember Labadie asked why both staff and the Planning Commission had recommended thirty -six inches. Planning Director Darling explained that thirty - six inches is the minimum requirement in the building code for safe egress and was recommended to minimize the variance. She noted that staff was not aware of the pool cover issue at the time of the request. Councilmember Siakel thanked the Butlers for coming into the City with all the information. She stated that she understands that they have put in an incredible amount of work gathering information, however, she will stick with the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Labadie confirmed that the thirty- six -inch recommendation came from staff and asked if that opinion would change based on the information provided tonight by Mr. Lutz. Planning Director Darling stated that she did not have enough information on pool cover requirements to make a recommendation. Sundberg amended her motion, Zerby amended his second, to recommend that there be a minimum of four feet of concrete along the north side of the pool. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she does not like going against Planning Commission recommendations but has questioned some of their recommendations with regard to variance requests. Councilmember Johnson stated that he was present for the very thorough discussion at the Planning Commission meeting which is why he would like to know if knowing about the seventy - foot drainage and utility easement behind the property would make any difference in their recommendation to the Council. Councilmember Labadie stated that she feels the letter from the developer in support of the pool and the fact that there is a seventy -foot drainage and utility easement behind the property are key pieces of information that the Planning Commission did not have when they made their initial recommendation. Motion failed 213 (Johnson, Labadie, and Siakel) Siakel moved, to Deny the Variance Request for Pool Setbacks by Tim and Sally Butler at 6035 Spruce Hill Court. Motion died for the lack of a second. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2019 Page 9 of 15 Planning Director Darling reminded the Council that this request is at the end of the one - hundred twenty -day review period. She noted that the Council could request that the applicant grant additional time to send it back to the Planning Commission to reconsider the request with the additional information. City Attorney Keane confirmed that the Council would ask the applicant to waive the one - hundred twenty -day review period. Planning Director Darling stated that she could take this item back to the Planning Commission for the February 5, 2019 meeting and back to the Council on the February 11, 2019 meeting. Mayor Zerby asked the applicants if they are willing to allow a forty - five -day extension to allow the Planning Commission to discuss it with the new information. Mr. Butler stated that they are willing to grant the extension but he is unable to attend any of the meetings in February because he will be out of town. He stated that if the Council would like additional time, he is willing to grant a sixty -day extension and then he would be able to attend the meetings in March. Planning Director Darling asked Mr. Butler to sign a statement that they are granting the City the sixty -day extension before they leave this evening. She noted that the Planning Commission will meet on March 5, 2019 and the Council will meet on March 11, 2019. Mayor Zerby clarified that this item would be brought back to the Planning Commission in March in order for them to consider the request in light of the letter from Lennar Homes in support of the pool location, the seventy -foot drainage and utility easement behind the property, and the pool cover safety requirements. VA MEETING TYPE: City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Variances to pool setbacks for Sally and Tim Butler at 6035 Spruce Hill Court Meeting Date: January 14, 2019 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen, Assistant Planner Review Deadline: January 27, 2019 Attachments: Council Action Form from December 10, 2018 Planning Staff Memorandum Resolution for Approval Resolution for Denial Policy Consideration: Should the City grant variances to allow a pool in a rear yard? Background: See attached CAF and Planning Staff memorandum for detailed background on this item. At the December 10, 2018 meeting, the City Council voted unanimously to continue the request to the January 14th meeting in order to give the applicant time to discuss acquiring more property from the owner of the lot to the north ( Lennar). After the meeting, staff contacted the applicants and found that they had contacted Lennar, the owner of the property to the north, after the last meeting. However, at the time this report was completed, Lennar's staff had not given him any indication that they are interested in selling some of the lot to the the applicants. Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees cover the cost of processing the request. Options: Because the review deadline is rapidly approaching and some members of the City Council indicated support for the variance application at the last meeting, staff has attached two resolutions one each for approving or denying the request based on the information discussed at the last meeting. The resolution approving the request includes the conditions from the Planning Commission staff report. The options moving forward include adopting a resolution to approve or deny the request or modifying either resolution. Either resolution requires a simple majority to adopt. Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution (denying, approving) variances for Sally and Tim Butler for property located at 6035 Spruce Hill Court, based on the findings in the attached resolution. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. SaPlonningjft-ing Fil .Vpplic.tlons12018CosesOutler VAR Spruce Hill CttCAF190114.doa CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 2018 Page 5 of 10 7. PLANNING —Continued C. Variances to Pool Setbacks at 6035 Spruce Hill Court for Sally and Tim Butler — Continued Planning Director Darling explained that this request is for a setback variance to place a pool and a patio on the north side of the home located at 6035 Spruce Hill Court. She gave an overview of the current setback requirements in the City for this zoning district. She stated that at the November 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting it was found that although there are some limitations on the property based on its configurations, it was felt that the property owners still have reasonable use of the lot without a pool and voted four to zero to deny the variance request. Tim Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, stated that there is a seventy -foot easement behind their lot that is not buildable. He stated that feels the location of the pool they are proposing is reasonable because of the easement behind their property and is wooded on two- thirds of the perimeter which will block the view of the pool by their neighbors. He noted that he has gotten six letters of support from his neighbors for the pool and the location in the back yard. He stated that if they were to put in a pool in the sideyard, it would have to be smaller and would require the well to be moved. He noted that it would also be visible to three of the neighboring homes. Councilmember Johnson asked if Mr. Butler had contacted the developer of the Minnetonka Country Club development to inquire about purchasing the easement. Mr. Butler stated that he had made a call to Lennar Homes, but had not heard back from them yet. He stated that if they were open to selling the easement to him, he is open to purchasing it. He stated that he questions the assessment of reasonableness made by the City. He read aloud some information from the League of Minnesota Cities land use variances document that is dated November 15, 2017 relating to reasonable use. Councilmember Sundberg asked if Mr. Butler had taken a look at the options that the staff and Planning Commission had suggested. Mr. Butler stated that he had looked at them and noted that he does not see a big difference between three feet and a five feet width for the patio. He stated that the other items are things that they intend to do, but he would like to have more usable space surrounding the pool. Aaron Lutz, 30 Northup Avenue, Tonka Bay, stated that they have contacted the original surveyor who did the survey with regard to the rain gardens. He explained that the surveyor had contacted City Engineer Fauske and another engineer at WSB that worked with the City on the hardcover regulations. He stated that the surveyor is willing to do the work to create the ran gardens as soon as approval is given. Councilmember Labadie stated that it feels like there are still some moving parts that need to be solidified before the Council can make a decision. She stated that she would support granting an extension in order to give the applicant some time on those items and have it brought back to the Council later. Councilmember Sundberg asked Planning Director Darling for clarification on the options outlined in the packet. She asked if it meant that if the applicant was willing to agree to the options outlined, then approval would be granted. Planning Director Darling stated that the conditions included in the packet were meant for the circumstance of either the Planning Commission or the Council approving the variance, then those conditions would CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 2018 Page 6 of 10 apply. She explained that it was not meant to imply approval to the applicant if they agreed to those conditions. Councilmember Siakel stated that there still appears to be a question of whether there is a hardship in this situation and a reason to approve a variance. She noted that Mr. Butler had cited some text from the League of Minnesota Cities and asked City Attorney Keane if he had a comment on that document and language. She stated that in her opinion that document refers more to a building and not an amenity, such as a pool. City Attorney Keane stated that there is a distinction between the reasonable use of one's property to have the essential necessities to use the property, such as a home and a garage, and an amenity such as a pool. He noted that he is not sure the same standard would apply. Mr. Butler stated that the term "undue hardship" is no longer the standard and the term "practical difficulty" is now used. He provided a copy of the document to the Council. Councilmember Sundberg asked if the neighbors supported his proposed location. Mr. Butler stated that all of the neighbors that he has been able to contact support the location behind his home. Councilmember Siakel stated that she would support Councilmember Labadie's suggestion to give Mr. Butler time to talk to Lennar Homes about acquiring the easement behind his property. She reiterated that she feels a pool is an amenity and not an essential use of the property. Councilmember Sundberg stated that there are a lot of things on a property that are considered amenities and she is not sure that term is a fair term to use for a pool. Councilmember Labadie stated that she agrees with Councilmember Siakel that in this case, a pool is an amenity. Mr. Butler stated that in his research of the Comprehensive Plan and the League of Minnesota Cities, he has not seen anything that calls out the distinction of a pool being any different than a building or a shed as being an amenity. He stated that he believes calling a pool an amenity is simply an opinion. City Attorney Keane asked if there was a sixty -day review deadline approaching. Planning Director Darling stated that the review deadline is January 27, 2019 so this item could be continued to the January 14, 2019 meeting without any issues. Labadie moved, Johnson seconded to Continue the Discussion Relating to Pool Setbacks and Variance at 6035 Spruce Hill Court for Tom and Sally Butler to the January 14, 2010 Council meeting. Motion passed 5/0. #8C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Variances to pool setbacks for Sally and Tim Butler at 6035 Spruce Hill Court Meeting Date: December 10, 2018 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen, Assistant Planner Review Deadline: January 27, 2019 Attachments: Planning Staff Memorandum Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a variances to allow a pool in a rear yard? Background: See attached memorandum for detailed background on this item. At the November 20, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. The applicant was present at the meeting. Specifically, the Planning Commission found that although a pool is a reasonable use of residential property, the request is not unique to this property, the property owner has other options to put the pool into the side yard (although that would require capping and installation of a new well), and that the request is not the minimum action necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The Planning Commission discussed the impact of the reduced setback on the lot to the north (after the home would be constructed). During the meeting, staff provided a copy of the grading plan, (upper right) which indicates undisturbed trees on an existing berm. Ultimately, the Planning Commission decided that the request for the variances did not meet the criteria, mentioning that not all lots are suitable for a pool. After the meeting, staff looked at the recorded plat (lower right) for the Minnetonka Country Club and found that the drainage and utility easement across the south end of the property is 70 feet wide (north to south). The trees that currently exist in the area are not protected by conservation easements, but are less likely to be disturbed in the future. Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees cover the cost of processing the request. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. S:l PlanninglPlanning FilestApplicationsX2018 CasesjButler VAR Spruce Hill CtkCAF 181210.doa Options: Approve, deny or modify the resolution. If the Council determine that the variance criteria are met, staff recommend that the conditions included in the Planning Commission staff report should be included as conditions of approval. They include the following: Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant should submit the final rain garden design indicating the applicants proposal to capture the run -off from the increase in impervious surface coverage (shown as 2,264 square feet); provide volume calculations; and ensure that the depth of the rain gardens does not exceed 1.2 feet for Type B soils, 0.8 feet for Type C soils, or .25 feet for Type D soils. At the footings inspections, the applicants shall expose their lots corner monuments, stake and string the property line for verification that the construction would be consistent with any approved variance. The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request based on the findings that the criteria for a variance were not met. Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution denying variances for Sally and Tim Butler for property located at 6035 Spruce Hill Court, based on the findings in the attached resolution and as recommended by the Planning Commission. The resolution requires a simple majority to adopt. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2015 Page 4 of 7 B. SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL Applicant: Tim and Sally Butler Location: 6035 Spruce Hill Court Director Darling explained that this request is for a fourteen -foot setback for a patio and a twenty -foot setback for a pool. She reviewed the zoning criteria for granting a variance and noted that staff finds they have not met the tests for practical difficulty and are recommending denial of the variance request. Tim Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, noted that they had moved to the City about a year and a half ago and he did not think to read all the zoning rules and policies before they purchased the home. He stated that his family would really like to have a pool and the location they are proposing makes it not visible to anyone from the street because it is directly behind the house and noted that there is also a lot of tree cover. He noted that he didn't think that the pool would have a negative impact on the aesthetics or the property value of the nearby properties and thinks having a pool in his backyard is a reasonable request. Commissioner Reidel clarified that Mr. Butler was asking for a 20 x 44 -foot swimming pool and asked whether he had considered a smaller pool. Mr. Butler stated that he had briefly considered a small swim spa type pool but they have a lot of kids and ultimately decided a pool that size would not be the best fit. Aaron Lutz, stated that he is a resident but also a pool contractor and noted that the well is in the side yard, so that location would also not be possible. Commissioner Davis asked if the green space buffer Mr. Butler referred to as part of the Minnetonka Country Club was secure and no one would ever develop in that area. Director Darling noted that it is not secure, there is a drainage and utility easement in place. She showed lots that could have homes built on them as part of the Minnetonka Country Club development. Commissioner Reidel stated that there is nothing unreasonable about wanting a pool, he just is not sure it fits on this lot and this variance request is significant. Reidel moved, Davis seconded to recommend denial of the setback variance request for a pool at 6035 Spruce Hill Court. Motion passed 4/0. Director Darling noted that this will be on the Council agenda for December 10, 2018. Mr. Lutz asked for clarification that the denial was because of the size of the pool. Commissioner Reidel clarified that it was not necessarily the size, just that a pool doesn't fit this lot. Ms. Butler stated that their lot is almost an acre and doesn't have a home in site and the setback requirements in the City are much more than surrounding cities. Commissioner Reidel suggested they consider moving their well and locating the pool in the side yard. Ms. Butler stated that their original proposal has the pool behind the house so nobody driving by can see it and putting in the side yard allows everyone to see it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Chair Maddy noted that the Planning Commission has to treat everyone the same and noted that they are just a recommending body and the Council will make the ultimate decision. MEMORANDUM 5755 Country Club Road a Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 ® 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952 -474 -0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mmus ® cityhall @dshorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Patti Helgesen, Assistant Planner DATE: November 20, 2018 RE: Sally and Tim Butler LOCATION: 6035 Spruce Hill Court REVIEW DEADLINE: January 27, 2018 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R -lA FILE NUMBER: 18.20 REQUEST The applicants request a variance to place a pool and patio on the north side of their home. They propose to construct the pool 20 feet and the patio about 14 feet from the north property line where 30 feet is required for the pool and 50 feet is required for the patio. Notice of this application was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Page 2 Context: The lot was created as part of the Spruce Hill subdivision in 1993. The home was constructed in 1998. The properties to the north (within the Minnetonka Country Club) are currently vacant. The R -1A zoning district requires all structures to be setback 50 feet from the rear property line. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3 c. (6) allows a swimming pool to be constructed at 60 percent of that which is required for the zoning district in which the pool is located. That section also states that decking and patios shall not encroach into the required rear yard setback area. As a result, the required setbacks in the R -IA district is 30 feet for pools and 50 feet for patios. Impervious Surface Coverage The applicants have proposed to construct two rain gardens, one shown conceptually on each side of the pool to slow the rate of the additional storm water runoff from the increased impervious surface coverage. Should the variance be approved, the applicants would need to provide additional design detail to show the raingardens function in the manner proposed. VARIANCE ANALYSIS The zoning regulations allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2. b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria, as follows: 1. Intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: The property owner would continue to use the property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district's allowed uses. 2. Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. Staff finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. a. Reasonable: While a pool is a reasonable use on a residential property, staff finds that the applicants already have a reasonable use of the property without a pool. b. Self- Created: The property owners did not create the difficulty, which is related to the irregular shape of the lot. There is no conforming location for a pool on the property. C. Essential Character: The pool is not likely to alter the essential character of the locality for the existing neighbors, as the homes on both sides of this property are located well away from the proposed pool. However, the City has used setbacks to keep active uses towards the center of the property to reduce their impact on adjacent properties. 3. Economic Considerations: The applicants have not proposed the variance based on economic considerations. The pool is proposed to make the home more useable for their family. Required Existing Proposed Impervious Surface Coverage 1 33 % (max.) 14.8 % 20.45% The applicants have proposed to construct two rain gardens, one shown conceptually on each side of the pool to slow the rate of the additional storm water runoff from the increased impervious surface coverage. Should the variance be approved, the applicants would need to provide additional design detail to show the raingardens function in the manner proposed. VARIANCE ANALYSIS The zoning regulations allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2. b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria, as follows: 1. Intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: The property owner would continue to use the property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district's allowed uses. 2. Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. Staff finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. a. Reasonable: While a pool is a reasonable use on a residential property, staff finds that the applicants already have a reasonable use of the property without a pool. b. Self- Created: The property owners did not create the difficulty, which is related to the irregular shape of the lot. There is no conforming location for a pool on the property. C. Essential Character: The pool is not likely to alter the essential character of the locality for the existing neighbors, as the homes on both sides of this property are located well away from the proposed pool. However, the City has used setbacks to keep active uses towards the center of the property to reduce their impact on adjacent properties. 3. Economic Considerations: The applicants have not proposed the variance based on economic considerations. The pool is proposed to make the home more useable for their family. Page 3 4. Impact on Area: The property owners are not proposing anything that would impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire or endanger public safety, or increase the impact on adjacent streets. 5. Impact to Public Welfare and Other Improvements. The applicants' proposal is unlikely to impact or impair adjacent property values or the public welfare. Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty. Because the property owners have reasonable use of the property without a pool, staff finds the action is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the applicants have not met all three tests for practical difficulties nor have they shown the request is the minimum action necessary as they have reasonable use of the property without a pool. Consequently, staff recommends denial of the variance. As the standards are open to interpretation, staff acknowledges that the Planning Commission may find the variance criteria are met. Should the Commission recommend approval of the variance, they could consider the following conditions of approval (to be met prior to issuance of a building permit): a. Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant should submit the final rain garden design indicating how the applicants propose to capture the run -off from the increase in impervious surface coverage (shown as 2,264 square feet); provide volume calculations; and ensure that the depth of the rain gardens does not exceed 1.2 feet for Type B soils, 0.8 feet for Type C soils, or .25 feet for Type D soils. b. At the footings inspections, the applicants shall expose their lots corner monuments, stake and string the property line for verification that the construction would be consistent with any approved variance. c. The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. ATTACHMENTS Location map Applicants' narrative and plans SMImmingTlarming FilesUpplications\2018 CaseslBmler VAR Spence Hill COPC memo 1120 18.docx CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: March 5, 2019 RE: Lot Line Adjustment (Lot Division/Consolidation) and Variance LOCATION: 25875 Valleywood Lane and 5550 Meadowview Road APPLICANTS: David Boike and Chad Schurr REVIEW DEADLINE: May 17, 2019 ZONING: R- IA FILE NO.: 19.04 REQUEST The property owners request a lot line adjustment to exchange property. Last year, the Schurrs' constructed a new home at 5550 Meadowview Road and found that improvements for 25875 Valleywood Lane had been constructed on their property. The property owners have come to an agreement to exchange property and propose the adjustment to resolve the issue. A variance is necessary for 25875 Valleywood Lane as the property currently contains less property than required in the R -1 A zoning district and the exchange would result in a reduction in lot area. Notice of this application was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Page 2 BACKGROUND Context: The subject properties are currently developed with a single - family home on each lot. Under the plan, the existing homes would remain. The existing home at 25875 Valleywood Lane was constructed in 1976, with a variance reducing the front yard setback to 35 feet from 50 feet. The lot was created as part of the Shorewood Acres 2nd Addition plat in 1964. The property at 5550 Meadowview Road is unplatted. The properties contains mature trees, but no development is proposed at this time. No portion of the property is within a 100 -year floodplain or shoreland overlay district. The adjacent properties are all developed with single family homes. ANALYSIS A. Lot Division/Consolidation. Lot Width/Area: The current and proposed lot areas and widths are shown below. In researching the lot line adjustment, the surveyor found that the property descriptions overlapped, with both lots counting the same land towards their total area. As a result, the application is also clearing up a title question that would otherwise have gone unnoticed until a dispute occurred. As a result, the lot size for both properties would decrease. ADDRESS I EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED IN R -1A Lot Area (sq. ft.) Lot Width* Lot Area (lineal ft.) (sq. ft.) Lot Width* (lineal ft.) Lot Area (sq. ft.) Lot Width* (lineal ft.) 25875 Valleywood Ln 28,002 ±119 27,801 ** ±133 40,000 120 feet 5550 Meadowview Rd 49,469 ±256 49,269 ±240 *As measured at the front setback * *Variance discussed below Because 25875 Valleywood Lane does not meet the requirements for lot area and would decrease as a result of this proposal, the applicants requested a variance, discussed below. Easements: Section 1202.05 Subd. 6 requires 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicants be required to provide easements consistent with city code requirements. B. Lot Area Variance for 25875 Valleywood Lane. The zoning regulations allow for subdivision variances upon showing that unusual hardship exists and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1202.08 Subd. I of the Shorewood Subdivision Regulations sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria, as follows: Are the proposed uses compatible with the existing uses in the vicinity? The subject property and all the surrounding properties are currently zoned and guided for residential purposes. No change in use is proposed and consequently the uses would remain compatible. Page 3 2. Are there special and unique circumstances or conditions affecting the property that are not common to other properties in the city and the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable and minimum use of its land? The special and unique circumstance is that both property owners' legal descriptions included the same strip of land and the owners' had no idea the deck and hard - surface area encroached over the property line. Denying the variance and the lot line adjustment would not permit the property owners the opportunity to clear their titles and come to an amicable solution to the situation. 3. Would the variance cause detrimental impact to public welfare /adjacent properties? Approval of the variance would create an invisible correction to the existing situation. 4. Would the variance correct the inequity resulting from the hardship related to the title problem? Approval of the variance would correct the inequity. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment affecting both properties and the variance to lot area for the property addressed as 25875 Valleywood Lane, subject to the applicants' submission of executed 10 -foot drainage and utility easements. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Applicants' narrative Survey of properties Engineer's Memo Correspondence Received SAPlaming\Pla ing Files \Applicalions\2019 Cases \Valleywood Meadowview MS Boike\PC M —d- CD i,mi&lo 11 Val 00 Subject P loperti k � N ISi S nn v le La u a` W it to n it L � i i i ithto n L N � b 0 250 500 1,000 M Feet s . allk E 3 11 I Reason for Variance Request and minor subdivision: Dave Boike currently has a hard scape bituminous area that extends onto Chadd Schurr and Tasha Francis's northern property line. In lieu of Dave having to remove the infringing bituminous area, the parties have been working together exchange equal amounts of property so that the bituminous area can remain in place, but no longer infringe Chadd and Tasha's property. To meet this goal, the parties have agreed to an exchange of land (which will be legally changed pending approval from the city). We would like to city to grant Dave a 5.5 ft set back variance off our Northern boundary line as outlined in the provided survey. This will allow the parties to swap equal amounts of property, such that the bituminous area may remain in place, while not infringing Tasha and Chadd's property. Resulting: 1) Extending the Schurr / Francis Property line from our current Western boundary line 15.92ft west to the city's boundary 2) Extend the Boike's property current property line 5.5 ft south from edge of bituminous Valle -wo o d Lane ` - Centerline - Curb N89 31 '44 "E 189.87 3� N L6 I Proposed Tract A 27,801 sq. ft. 0 Existing PlD No. 3211723110028 ^e 28,002 sq. ft. tl Existinc House 2 ----------- - - - - -- 116.9 ----------- - - - - -- 9� 3j N _ IN I Q) Gravel - U En tran ce. r - -S'ly, line of Outlot 1, SHOREWOOD ACRES 2nd ADDN. 44:t� -- 33.9 - -- „`�� 401 Sq Ft --�_� N `� (overlap portion) \1 \ Bituminous 194.00 y <r \� -- -2,805 Sq Ft - -" N8925'21 "E 209.96 L ` L6 � N. line of Existing P1D No. 3211723110002 (per deed)-- - / I I I ` - -N. line of S 486.47 !ft.! o W %2 of NE %4 of NE %4 I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I N I � i I LrS ° Proposed Tract B 49,269 sq. ft. 9 •� \p 1'GJb9� Co 0 Z 00 - - - - -- 75.4 -- - - - - -- I - -- 91.4 — ------ - -J- I I I I I I I I I I I I I Existing PlD No. 3211723110002 i. ft. - - - -- 74.5 --- - - - - -- cc O O Z 1 °o N N V. Co O O 2 b O Q: I O �S I I I I I I I I I I I Cc 121- I I ! S89-25'21"W 194.00 �\ i I/ 00 Gravel`:'+" O P I I In A` W 4W I I I N I l � _ - h 9 •� \p 1'GJb9� Co 0 Z 00 - - - - -- 75.4 -- - - - - -- I - -- 91.4 — ------ - -J- I I I I I I I I I I I I I Existing PlD No. 3211723110002 i. ft. - - - -- 74.5 --- - - - - -- cc O O Z 1 °o N N V. Co O O 2 b O Q: I O �S 0 0 F � r 0 � o 0 >; c� J1 • O a v I U AA�++ W 121- I ! S89-25'21"W 194.00 �\ i I/ W Z Gravel`:'+" O Entrance- • `• A` W 4W . (0 Z v SE con of W %2 o f NE %4 a f NE !14 N 0 S. An line of W %2 a f NE 14 of NE 1/ 0 m Bearings based on assumed datum. l hereby certify -that this certificate of survey was prepared by me Job Number. 8751 Book/Page: LL SC ®BO l7C7 or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Registered Survey Date: 9112118 0 0 F � r 0 � o 0 >; c� J1 • O a v I AA�++ W 121- ! S89-25'21"W 194.00 �\ i W m O I O A` W 4W i ° (0 _rz) a /� 25.00 - 121- ! S89-25'21"W 194.00 �\ i P.O.B. -- L I I t � v SE con of W %2 o f NE %4 a f NE !14 N S. An line of W %2 a f NE 14 of NE 1/ Bearings based on assumed datum. l hereby certify -that this certificate of survey was prepared by me Job Number. 8751 Book/Page: LL SC ®BO l7C7 or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Registered Survey Date: 9112118 Land Surveyor under e /aws of the State of Minnesota. Drawing Name: boike.dw 1 p L SERVICES Drawn by: DMS INC. - - - - - -- Revisions: - Paul B. Schoborg 12 -31 -18 move proposed boundar line 1 -04 -19 (move proposed boundary line) 763 - 972 -3221 8997 Co. Rd. 13 SE Date: Z ®l Sheet 1 of 2 www.SchoborgLand.com Delano, MN 55328 ��L = •9 Registration No. 14700 -- -- -- - - �--- - - - - -- 0 U 0 z w CO rn 0 LO LOM r V u) z 75 0 a Q w z z 0 M w F- D w Z) z w a a z w x 0 WS% To: Marie Darling, Planning Director From: Alyson Fauske, PE, City of Shorewood Date: January 30, 2019 Re: .25875 Valleywood Lane Subdivision City of Shorewood, MN WSB Project No. 013510 -000 Based on the application including the Certificate of Survey prepared by Schoborg Land Services, Inc. I offer the following comments: 1. Perimeter drainage and utility easements were not included in the Shorewood Acres 2nd Addition plat. 2. According to the plat a drainage and utility easement extended from the northeast corner to the southwest corner of the main portion of Outlot A (25875 Valleywood Lane). City records do not indicate that a public utility exists in this location. Based on the contours this area does not appear to convey drainage to the wetland to the west. The easement appears to have been vacated as it is not depicted on the Certificate of Survey. 3 5110REW000 ACM Zed ADOMP Ten -foot wide perimeter drainage and utility easements should be dedicated, consistent with the Shorewood City Code Section 1202.05 Subd. 6a. C: \Users \mdarling\AppDatalLocal \Microsoft\ Windows\ INetCache \Content.Outlook\WG5RBXNC\25875 Valleywood Lane 20190130.docx Marie Darling ,.�„ x w,...,�, a -sr <Px , %:u -;✓ ,i, .n�:,u, ,rs.,r. ., �,x u;: .�,,... s.,, r, ��.y� �_ „�„ �. s�,.�w ., .ia,; ,� rcur .rr „r�s.;M,ra,,. .i. a� ,rr, ,,��: �.,.., ,r From: Pete Davis <smartypete @earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 5:31 PM To: Planning Subject: Boike and Schurr Lot Area Variance Shorewood Planning Commission Re: The Boike and Shurr lot line adjustment having a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 5 2019. 25875 Valleywood Lane 5550 Meadowvies I own and live in the property at 5495 Valleywood Circle, Shorewood, which is immediately north of the properties requesting adjustment across Valleywood Lane. I support the lot line adjustment worked out by my neighbors and feel the circumstances justify a lot area variance. Peter Davis 5495 Valleywood Circle Shorewood 612- 581 -6751 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: March 5, 2019 RE: APPLICANT: Minor subdivision Melanie Hermann LOCATION: 24775 Glen Road REVIEW DEADLINE: June 6, 2019 ZONING: R -1 C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: FILE NO.: 19.03 REQUEST Low to Medium Density Residential The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into two lots and construct two new homes. She recently demolished the existing home and received a building permit to construct one new house on the west side of the lot. BACKGROUND Context: In 1909, the property was created as two lots (Lots 14 and 15) in the Manitou Glen subdivision. At some point the two lots were consolidated. The previous home was constructed in 1963. The property contains mature trees and is subject to tree preservation. The site has no property within a floodplain overlay district or shoreland overlay district. A wetland lies to the east of the subject property and the proposal is subject to wetland buffer requirements. All of the adjacent properties are developed with single family homes. Page 2 ANALYSIS Lot Width/Area: Section 1202.05 Subd. 2. c. of the subdivision regulations requires that all lots have adequate frontage on a city approved street. Additionally, section 1201.12 of the zoning regulations has specific area and width requirements for newly created lots. The current and proposed lot areas and widths are shown below: ADDRESS EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED IN R -1C Lot Area Lot Width* Lot Area Lot Width* Lot Area Lot Width* Existing Property 79,856 sf 200 feet NA 20,000 sf 100 feet Lot 14 NA NA 39,913 sf 100 feet Lot 15 39,943 sf 100 feet *As measured at the front setback Easements: Section 1202.05 Subd. 4. h. requires a 50 -foot right -of -way width for all local streets. Glen Road was platted with 40 feet of right -of -way. Consequently, staff recommends the applicant submit an executed right -of -way easement for an additional 10 feet. Section 1202.05 Subd. 6. requires 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit executed, 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot prior to recording the subdivision with Hennepin County. Wetland: The property to the east contains a wetland. The applicant is required to delineate the wetland and create a wetland buffer for the portion of this property that lies within 35 feet from the wetland. The wetland cannot be delineated at this time of the year. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval that prior to recording the subdivision, the applicant: 1) delineate the wetland and 2) apply the required buffer and conservation easement if the wetland is within 35 feet of the subject property line. All structures must be setback 15 feet from the wetland buffer, but neither the wetland buffer nor setback are likely to impact the proposed building pads. Stormwater Run -Off. The applicant has shown that the previous level of impervious surface coverage exceeds that proposed for the two houses and driveways. Consequently, the proposal would not require any additional best management practices for rate or volume control due to the subdivision. However, the improvements proposed would alter the drainage pattern. Previously, all the storm water from the site flowed to the wetland to the east. As proposed, primarily the stormwater run -off from the driveways would flow north. The engineer's memo addresses this situation and staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant be required to provide information or revise the plans consistent with that memo. Utilities: The lots have access to municipal sewer. A right -of -way permit issued by the City of Shorewood would be required to install services. Water must be provided by private wells. Page 3 Tree Preservation: The applicant has identified 10 significant trees that would be removed to accommodate the improvements. Some additional tree loss may occur if a stormwater feature must be added into the front yards. Based on the size of the trees removed and the size of the property, 15 new trees would need to be planted on the lots. The applicant's plan indicates 14 trees and staff recommend adding one additional tree to the plan. There is adequate room for the additional tree on the two lots and the applicant has shown climate - tolerant species on the landscaping plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision based on the finding that the lots would be consistent with subdivision and zoning requirements with the following conditions: • Prior to recording the subdivision, the applicant complete the following: a. Submit a wetland delineation to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) indicating the extent of the wetland on the adjacent property and provide a copy of the Notice of Decision to the City. b. Revise the plans as needed to show a wetland buffer on the property pending the decision by the MCWD. c. Submit executed 10 -foot right -of -way easement(s) across both lots adjacent to Glen Road; 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot; and a conservation easement over the wetland buffer (pending the decision by the MCWD). d. Submit fees for park dedication ($6,500) and local sanitary sewer access charge ($1,200) for one additional lot. e. Revise the plans to provide one additional tree. f Revise the plans or submit the information required in the Engineers memo dated February 25, 2019. • Other conditions: a. With each building permit application, the applicant shall submit a tree preservation/landscaping plan signed by a licensed forester, arborist or landscape architect. b. Prior to installing services or conducting other work in the right -of -way, obtain a right - of -way permit. C. Prior to construction of improvements on either lot, the applicant must acquire the appropriate permits. All construction must be consistent with the requirements of City Code. ATTACHMENTS Location map Engineer's memo Applicant's narrative and plans SAPlaming\Plaming Files \Applications\2019 Cases\24775 Glen Rd MS Hems \PC memo.do 1 �.1G1 Tonka Bay I e f d •�o e Subjiect Property J O L L Cr U L S.► Y U) mt 0 c� � U N Ri int MUM La it 1-T "M 0 250 500 1,000 TT Feet �e 0 U Z W m 0 0 Z J 0 CL a W Z Z 0 M W U) W Z W a Z W X 0 Lam-. To: Marie Darling, AICP, City Planner From: Alyson Fauske, PE, City of Shorewood Date: February 25, 2019 Re: 24775 Glen Road City of Shorewood, MN WSB Project No. 013659 -000 Based on the plans prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Co. dated January 4, 2019 1 offer the following comments: 1. Per the Manitou Glen plat, the existing right of way width of Glen Road is 40 feet at this location. The city's standard right of way width is 50 feet. Additional right of way dedication is required. 2. Ten foot wide perimeter drainage and utility easements are required on both lots. 3. Decks are not considered impervious surface and should be removed from the existing and proposed hard surface coverage calculations. 4. Based on the information provided, and considering comment #1, the proposed impervious surface will be less than the predevelopment condition. 5. Based on the topographic information provided by the applicant, the site currently drains to the low area to the southeast. The proposed grading alters the drainage pattern, with the driveways and possibly part of the homes draining to the street. The applicant must revise the grading plan to match the existing drainage pattern, or provide design features and the necessary calculations to illustrate that the post- construction discharge rates do not exceed the current rates. 6. On Lot 14, the applicant may want to reconsider the 10% driveway grade at the street connection; a 3% landing is typically preferred. 7. According to the city's sanitary sewer as -built for Glen Road, a sanitary sewer service exists on the east end of Lot 15. The applicant shall verify the location of the existing sanitary sewer service. If the existing service cannot be utilized, it must be properly abandoned. 8. The contractor installing a new sanitary sewer service must register with the city according to the Chapter 901, Ordinance No. 552 and obtain the necessary permit to perform the work. K: \013659 -000\Admin \Docs\20190225 review memo.docx Requesting a lot split for 24775 Glen Road, Shorewood Mn 55331 Owner: Melanie Margot Hermann Property Id Number: 33- 117-23-12-0023 Addition name: Manitou Glen Metes& Bounds: Lots 14 and 15 Torrens Type: Residential Summary: Request to split PIN 33- 117 -23 -12 -0023 as outlined in the Hennepin County property information, separating into the separate Lots outline 14 and 15. 100 100 100 100 11 144"1 236.18 S87 °58'23" L Each lot will be approximately 100 ft x 400 ft in accordance with the city lot size — no variances are being requested. (3) 6 (2) f (10) Q (9) 8 5 118.5 118.5 11II 5 772.5 100 100 100 100 1 Cl) 1`1 � 14 M 15 m 1G ur 0) (23) (24) 100 100 100 100 11 144"1 236.18 S87 °58'23" L Each lot will be approximately 100 ft x 400 ft in accordance with the city lot size — no variances are being requested. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14 and 15, NIANITOU GLEN, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WES'T'ERLY PARCEL,: Lots 14, MANITOU GLEN, Hennepin Counq', Minnesota. Contains 39,909 Sq. Ft. Note: "Buildable" Area (area inside the building setbacks) = 25,927 Sq. Feet PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASTERLY PARCEL: Glen Ben chm ark:. , INSTALL -. Top oT manhole 964 I I,9490 (P r Ct Lots 15, MANITOU GLEN, Hennepin County, Minnesota. seer FENCE S A, -B,„li M/ j Contains 39,938 Sq. Ft. Edge I,cf bit. reed Note, "Buildable" Area (area inside the building setbacks) = 25,951 Sq. Peet INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTON ENTRANCE PER NOrES-- SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: - — — — 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include detemlining 1' 14L 1 w at 1ou o w n, which Is l e gal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel if necessary, make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown. 2 Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary, for the survey. 8143 t 3. Setting Survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the comers of the property. 4. Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of Such governmental agencies that may have SILT EENCE a 44 jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding with construction. SANITARY SANITARY 5ER£R PER SANITARY SEN£R PER 5. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for CITY STANDARDS I - �/4 Your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that INSTALL ROCK benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when detennining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning EX/577NC 9' PVC W construction. 722JQ 6 6. While we have shown the trees as tagged by an arborist, the following tress were tagged but located off of the site: 168 -173, 174 -186, 193 -195- N 1 181 e v 7 We show a proposed division of the Property. Please review the ro proposal to see that it is what `ou intend and submit to those governmental agencies P P P P ) g ,. that ha v e Jun sd i ct i on to obtain their approvals, if ou can before making any decisions regarding the property. • t_ w 8. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances that PROPOSED ELEVATIONS LOT 14 8173 4, ac -7 SILT EENCE .- CONNECT TO EXISPNC Road TO EX1571NC SANITARY SANITARY 5ER£R PER SANITARY SEN£R PER CITY STANDARDS CITY STANDARDS si_, lNV =94891 - 1NV =94791 INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION EX/577NC 9' PVC { ENTRANCE PER NOTES SANITARY SERER 722JQ S �- S •s- (PER CITY AS BUILT INFO.) I N 1 38.19" W l s -- oo.00 -- • t_ SF — SF SF - - - o - 100.00- -- - - - - -- ac -7 ,y1J4 -11131 .¢137 i'' of I N 11 9 n, ( 96F ,fr'JO7 p, 722JQ ,9102 - 0 C/+730 o O CLEAN INSTALL 2 q r 2 E `LIT 119 -�, Q-1' Y PE t '�12 Q Q o U >7 � S O5 2 hl 0 II -- _ SILT FENCE 9 _72 _ � G s 12! 0 -1- 966 h� W�.1' #106 Q 8 {094Win 979 C, y110 - PROPOSEDk Slj N£LL ''� I $JOB © PROPOSED �fEZL J 'INSTALL 4 "PVC CLEAN OUT 7 � 5� I I 96> O .9177, I I- MY,- - -;Q $ - 65 0 - --96501w 95 9.26w - -- PROPOSED would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the - as q - ,,, , 8128 0 _- 9G7 a RErAwwc waec 972 ones shown hereon. FIRST FLOOR (SUB - FLOOR) = 977.20 "A K 2s Q- 96s0rw 9. Note that all building imensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding nd or stucco of the building. TOP OF FOUNDATION = 975.30 -1 -4 .0B o 10.0 I1 4 96ZeA JO -0 2BST 959.26w -•.240 N "I g g g� BASEMENT FLOOR = 966.68 Z4 0 - -� 6�0 ^ ®�- - e � 60 ' GARAGE FLOOR = 975.00 1115 ° - q e 9szs-_ 6.0 � c 1 e 974.9-. 6.0 PROPOSED , PROrosED PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (LOT-15 ) STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: lll n o DTTFCUNCr ti Dif L m I„ ,91 9a7:1 a '- 0ZL Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted. 24 -0 o I FIRST FLOOR (SUB - FLOOR) = 970.20 72 TOP OF FOUNDATION = 968.30 DECK 917 o o _= DECK 979 N1NDOfV qb rocs M n BASEMENT FLOOR = 959.68 II 9 GRADING &, EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 8J 12- 'psi 9 ?Z N£LL � ll 4776 � GARAGE FLOOR = 968.00 BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN PROPOSED -] © - 30.0 ll 11 Jo 0' _ • A dune sler shall be laced on the site for roe t disposal of constnicnon • Eesmn control measure shown on the erosion control Ian are the absolute r. • Install silt fence/bio roll around the erimeler aC the construclmn area. P P P P P P RETAINING WALL ___ q _ 9ss9 9613pw -- s . '' - INSTALL P debris. These dumpsters shill be sen'iced regularly to prevonl overtlosving and minimum. The contractor shall install tonporan earth dikes, sediment traps or _ - 815J TD ' -970 0tw ll 1963 Jbw II 959 J/• I y SILT FENCE • Sediment control measures must rmnin in place until final stabilization Ims blaming onto adjacent properties. Disposal of solid wastes from the site shall in basins and additional sill fencing ax deemed necessan� to coiled erosion. 1 01 -- qn -?ss. Jbw ss gee 0fx " 958' 'I g been established and then shall be removed. Sediment controls may be accordance with N- finnesota Pollution Cantrell Agency requirements. d. 8155 '° SITE WORK COMPLETION: removed to accommodate short teen construction adis ih' but must be replaced 154 0 - q 969.0(x- qb I h h • A separate container shall be placed for disposal of hmardous waste. RRaen final grading has been completed but before placement of seed or sod at, "1 fp /Ib 966. Jbx before the nest min. helm of " 1 Ha >ardous wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with MPCA requirements. as built sun ex. be done per City of Sherwood requirements to insure p r.t 8 56�a, / U - -I-II I sf faro/ O • A tempomn' rock construction romance shall be established at each access Thal grading was properly done. � L p'157' -- _ _ • Concrete leek washout shall be in the plastic fired ditch and dispose of 1 g1�5B p point to Ise site and a (inch d, shall ll I l0 2 inch rock l pending at least 30 feet washings as solid waste. • When ms remedial grading has been completed, sod or seeding shall be ? C:;7 "': - - I 1 B 2 - h from the street into the site and shall be underlain with pcencable gcotevlile s - ;P'f60 - fabnc The entrance shall be maintained during onstruction by to dressing or • Sediment control devices shall be regularly ins ected and after ma or rainfall completed including am erosion carrel blankets for steep areas. I g61 ¢ 4 _, 7'' -. S P g P J Q� 8159 by ". ' -- PROPOSED washing to present tracking or [low of sediments onto public streets, walks or events mid shad[ be cleaned and repaired us necessan• to provide downstream • When turf is established, sill fence and inlet prateeian mid other erosion 61 \e. 0 _ 9g50 sF '( I RETAIN /NC WALL allccs. Potential entrances that arc not so protected shall be closed by fencing protection. control devices shall be disposed of and adjacent streets, alles s and walks shall , _ Q' " sr t // to prevent unprotected evil from th Streets and other public ways shall be inspected daily aid iClitter or soils has e site. be cleaned as needed to deliver a site that is erosion resistant and clean. 8183 © -.. -- .. \ k,C -_ __; INSTALL !8Q6j • P \\ 62 S° U SIT r FENCE 67' 8 204 • Contractor shall install inlet protection on all existing stoma sewer inlets in been deposited it shall promptly be removed. • Contractor shall maintain positive drainage of a mininmm 2 %slope awn }� from 8 ¢`166 8 SF. I "c"-dance with the cu, standard details Inlet proleclion shall also be proposed building. © " "' provided on all proposed storm sewer inlets immediately following construction • If mcccssan', schidcs, that have mud an Iheinchcds, shall be cleaned before -- 1 , - .fill, ed of Inlet p exiting the site in the rock entrance areas 650 � - election must be installed in a manner That will not im and 8 of seater for extended periods of tunic or un a manner Ilmt presents a har rd to • Moisture shall be applied to disturbed areas to control dust as needed. 81640 INSTALL raj xOj _ ,¢206 8218 s chicular or cdcstrian traffic. _ SILT FENCE © P • Portable toilet facilities shall be placed on site for use bs workers mid shall be - -_ -. O = s DURING CONSTRUCTION. Properly n ninnined 2 '�OS • Rgmen dm stockpiles have been created, a double row of silt fence shall be • [fit becomes necessan' to pump the evcacauon during construction, pwnp 8187 placed to prevent escape of seduuau laden runoaand if the piles or other dischar5e shall be into the stockpile areas so that the double silt fence around disturbed areas are to remain in place for more than 14 dais, they shall be these cocas can nitcr the water bcCor it leaves the sic. 1 8202 AP0 j ceded -th Minnesota Department ofTrmuponauon Seed Mixture 22 -111 at - - I n. lb /acre followed by covering with sprau nn lch. • Tonpomre erosion control shall be installed no later than 14 revs after tine sire is first disturbed and shall consist oCbroadcast seeding with Minnesota - -� Department of Transponation Secd Mixture 22-111 at 1011 lb /acre followed by 8188 0 covering with spras mulch. EXISTING HARDCOVER House 2,941 Sq. Ft. 1 - -- °#20l`�. X209 Decks 832 Sq. Ft. 8191 0- - .If 0 Gravel Driveway 2,434 Sq. Ft. 0 81 0 v _82,6. _ _ . -9�� (�)E Canc. (incl. pool 825 SF) 3,358 Sq. Ft. Pavers 543 Sq. Ft. V' ;y'2I1_, Ret. Walls 528 Sq. Ft. © f210 TOTAL E %ISTING HARDCOVER 10,636 Sq. Ft. _ -- -- - I 0. - 0 ? 11 - Lj56!E11T AREA OF LOT 79,856 Sq. Ft. ,gg _ p212 8713 PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 13.3°s -__ 0,9186 �0_ ' o! o� s _ E,f'ISTINC COrVTOUR - o, o ,g279� 1 087.97 08193 _ 22 y22/ EAJSTIA'O SPOT ELRIiITION - __700.00 o-! 221 6 0 x'2020 I -- - A - - - --100.00-- - PROPOSED CONTOUR 970 PROPOSED HARDCOVER - LOT 14 PROPOSED HARDCOVER - LOT 15 - —,9225 II - - - - House 2,196 Sq. Ft. House 2,196 Sq. Ft. -- 20000 -- - Deck 46 Sq. Ft. Deck 48 Sq. Ft. .Fm„ 25 M ant t �` r s N 8928'02 Iv PROPOSED SPOT ELEli1TlOrY Front Vlalk /Stoop 127 Sq. Ft. Front Vlalk /Stoop 127 Sq. Ft. 'STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NOTE 970.5 - Driveway 1,959 Sq. Ft. Driveway 1,959 Sq. Ft. NO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIRED FOR 9RI1iUI0E eIRROl1' - F1101r Rat. Malls 60 Sq. Ft. Ret. Walls 136 Sq. Ft. PROPOSED LOTS DUE TO AN OVERALL REDUCTION TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 4,390 Sq. Ft. TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 4,466 Sq. Ft. IN HARDCOVER FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS: SILT FENCE SF AREA OF LOT 39,913 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 39,943 Sq. Ft. EXISTING HARDCOVER = 10,636 S0. FT. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 11.0% PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 11.2 °s PROPOSED HARDCOVER = 8,856 SO. FT. TREE REIM01 ,6 0 DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DRAWING ORIENTATION BSCALE CLIENT NAME /JOB ADDRESS 11111181111111 TPAT THIS PLAN, 1111111111111 OR SHEET TITLE SHEET SIZE REPORT WAS PREPARED R1 ME OR UNDER !.1'( DIRECT DATE SURVEYED: NOV. 14, 2018 ZZ X 34 1 -18 -19 RELIEASURE NORTH LINE AND ADJUSTED PER NEW MEASUREMENT. SlIERVLION 1111 MAT I ALI A DIL1 _11111111 MELANIE HERMANN P10111IN 1,A !1 IIJEER 111111 11E AJ,s D1 HE STATE SURVEYED BY Advanc e PROFES IC A PROPOSED SURVEY SHEET NO. ADVANCED SURVEYING 8 ENG., CO. - - Surveying &Engineering, Co. -- J�, 31, SCALE N 1 24 %%S GLEN ROAD 17917 Highway 7 JA52716 DRAWING NUMBER - - -- 1" = 30' SKOREWOOD, 1V11V Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 - - _ -- DATE DRAFTED. JANAUARY 4, 2018 0 ,D 60 181400 JR Phone (952) 474 -7964 RY 4, 2018 Web: wnrvv.advsur coe D, T, SHEET 10F2 r i4 Eli r 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 a 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ® cityhall &i.shorewood,mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: March 5, 2019 RE: Potential Zoning Regulations Text Amendments Concerning Lighting (Sections 1201.03 Subd. 2. i. and 1201.03 Subd. 11 b (2) (g) of City Code) On January 15, 2019, a resident spoke at "Matters from the Floor" regarding concerns about lighting on the property adjacent to her home and submitted some of her ideas for potential code amendments (minutes attached). The Commission indicated they would be willing to look at amendments and referred the matter to staff to begin researching potential code amendments. Staff indicated that we would collect ordinances from other communities in the area to research options for lighting regulations. Speakers Request: Staff has outlined the primary topics the speaker included in her proposed ordinance (attached). 1. All lighting for non - residential plans to be part of the pre -build approvals, including holiday lighting, other decorative lighting, site lighting and landscaping lighting. Staff note that this is already a requirement and what staff has based enforcement on to date. 2. Apply curfews to holiday lighting and restrict the amount of lights. The speaker indicated that lights bothering the resident the most were installed after the fact to celebrate the holidays. A curfew on residential lights would require a code amendment. 3. Define maximum lumens for all lights proposed on site. To date, this has not been part of the code for Shorewood and would require a code amendment. Most cities do not apply maximum lumens allowed on a site to holiday decorations. 4. Require motion sensors for existing, older buildings to shut off light when not needed. Page 2 The zoning ordinance does have curfew lighting restrictions for businesses in place now. Businesses that were in place prior to the adoption of the business hours regulations (Section 1201.03 Subd. 2 (t) (4) of the zoning regulations) are considered legally non - conforming and the new regulations may not be applied retroactively. The section applies to business uses, not residential and does not apply to the apartment building across the street from the speaker. To apply the business hours restrictions on residential uses would require a code amendment. 5. Prohibit lights directed at on- coming traffic. Staff notes that this is already a requirement in the City's code. 6. Provide limitations for spot lights. This would require a code amendment. Shorewood's Current Ordinances Regarding Lights: While other areas of the City Code also contain regulations for lighting, the bulk of the city's regulations are found in the sections copied below. The zoning regulations also include additional lighting standards specific to listed conditional uses (like drive - through service windows), development or uses in the L -R zoning district, and a curfew written into the business hours limitation. If changes are made to the sections below, other parts of code may also need revision. Section 1201.03 Subd. 2. i. (Glare): i. Glare. Any lighting used to illuminate an off - street parking area, sign or other structure shall be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky- reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding shall not be directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right -of -way. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one foot - candle (meter reading) as measured from the center line of the street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed four- tenths (A) foot - candles (meter reading) as measured from the adjoining residential property line. Staff Comments: The current regulations were drafted primarily to prevent nuisance light but need to be updated to reflect technological innovations. • The phrase "source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property" conflicts with allowing 1 or .4 foot - candles to spill to adjacent properties. This sentence could be tweaked to indicate the hoods or shields must completely block the views of the light source from the adjacent property. This does not mean that a neighbor would not seethe light cast by the fixture, but they should not see the source. • The reference to "bare incandescent light bulbs" must be updated to refer to light sources to cover all the newer types of lighting. Page 3 1201.03 Subd. 11 b (2 ) (g) (Signs): (g) No sign shall be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be animated, except for time and temperature information. All displays shall be shielded to prevent any light to be directed at on- coming traffic in the brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No device shall be illuminated in a manner as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. No light shall be directed onto a lake so as to interfere with navigation thereon. Staff Comments: The Commission may want to explore having a set amount of lighting per square foot of signage similar to that in the Plymouth or Bloomington code (See more discussion later in the report). In addition to the paragraph above, Shorewood also has limitations on digital signage lighting, which I did not include for this analysis as it is a recent amendment. Other Regulation Options: The table below indicates different types of lighting regulations. A review of other cites' ordinances are summarized briefly below with discussion of the lighting categories after. City Holiday Lighting Nuisance /Glare Output Fixture Signs Shorewood V V V Bloomington V V V V Chanhassen V V Excelsior V V V Plymouth V V V V V Minnetonka V V V Mound V V V Wayzata V V Holiday Lighting: Holiday lighting regulations are a challenge as they are universally unpopular and must be carefully drafted to avoid infringing on 1St Amendment constitutional protections. 1 st Amendment To the Constitution of the United States Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the d f h f th r r the Most cities rely instead on nuisance language to assess Al- om o speec , or o e p ess, o holiday lighting. right of the people peaceably to assemble, y g g and to petition the Government for a Plymouth has a curfew on most residential lighting, with redress of grievances. the exception of motion sensor security lighting and other listed types of lighting including holiday or seasonal lighting. Holiday lighting is specifically exempt as long as the individual lamps are not greater than 10 watts and 70 lumens. Plymouth also allows lower light spill onto adjacent properties than Shorewood does. Nuisance Lighting: In this category, staff included regulations such as maximum footcandles at property lines /center lines of public streets; preventing glare with hoods /shields; etc. All cities have at least some general language to use in nuisance enforcement. The following table summarizes the measurable footcandle limits. Page 4 City Nuisance Footcandles At Street/Property line Shorewood 1/.4 Bloomington NA/.5 Chanhassen 0 Excelsior 1/.4 Plymouth .1 -.8 Minnetonka NA/.5 Mound 1/.4 Wayzata NA Out ut: This category of regulation restricts the lumens produced by the lights used on the site. Bloomington and Plymouth both contain this type of regulation, but more for commercial sites. If the City were to apply output regulations to prevent holiday lighting from being used, the City's ordinance could face First Amendment challenges. Fixture Details: This category includes requirements for hooding /shields, cut -off, height, color rendering, source color. Most cities have some of these requirements (normally hooding /shields /cut - off/height) only Bloomington and Plymouth have regulations for all of them. Signs: Correlated Color Temperature defines color of a light source. A low CCT is in the amber end of the color spectrum and a high CCT is in the blue -white end. Color Rendering is a measure of the ability of a light to reveal the colors of various objects faithfully with a natural light source. Most cities surveyed have similar sign lighting regulations as Shorewood. Plymouth and Bloomington have both adopted output regulations to limit sign lighting in addition to nuisance prevention language, as indicated in the following table. City Sign Lighting Lumen Output per square foot Nuisance Prevention Language Only Shorewood NA Bloomington 100 -200 lumens Chanhassen NA Excelsior NA Plymouth Candela/square meter (LED) 12 watts /square foot (Other) Minnetonka NA Mound NA Wayzata NA Page 5 Bloomington has a second maximum limit for signs as well, measured in candela per square meter (nits). Signs in residential districts are limited to 125 nits maximum, with the exception of electronic signs. Architectural /Landscape Spot Lighting Most cities regulate lights using their nuisance lighting standards, except that Wayzata requires all lights to be directed straight up or straight down. Plymouth has standards for this type of lighting for apartments, businesses and non - residential uses. It is included in the total site lighting and the output intensity is limited based on the lighting zone of the property. Bloomington regulations limits spotlights to 3,000 lumens per fixture, uses nuisance lighting to regulate spill and has a maximum amount of decorative light on residential property of 350 nits. REQUEST: Review the information and provide recommendations to staff on what types of regulations to include into the ordinance. Once staff has your recommendations, staff would send the information to Council for direction on writing up any new regulations. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes from January 15, 2019 Request from Cindy Mair Other Cities' ordinances CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Cindy Marr 6015 Chaska Road, stated that she lives across from the Shorewood Landing sign. She asked if they had received her proposal. Chair Maddy explained that the Commission had all gotten a copy of the e-mail from Ms. Marr. Ms. Marr stated that she and her husband have been residents for 38 years and five of those years were spent without light pollution. She noted when the two -story office building was put in there was essentially a spot light shining on their property for years. She stated that she had complained to the City numerous times but nothing was done until there was a new owner who agreed to change the light on the south side of the building. She stated that about fifteen years ago their neighbors decided to put up spotlights in their trees and leave them on all night which completely flooded the southside of their property with light. She stated that they have dealt with that by purchasing window coverings that help block the light. She explained that when the senior facility was proposed, they came to the Planning Commission and explained that their biggest concern was the light pollution. She noted that at the time, two of the Commissioners agreed with their concerns. She stated that they are living in a very frustrating situation with both the building and the placement of the large white lights along the front of the building. She stated that she complained to the City three times and nothing happened even though she had suggested that they just agree to turn the lights off at 11:00 P.M. She stated that they have now added more lights in addition to lights on the pine trees along the berm that stay on all night long. She stated that even people across the highway have complained that the light was shining all the way over there. She stated that there are many other neighbors who have been adversely affected by the lights and explained that she had gotten signatures from twelve neighbors stating that they believe there is excessive lighting at this location. She asked the Planning Commission to go to the location with the lights fully turned on so they have a better idea of what the residents in this area have been dealing with. She stated that her request is for these lights to be turned off at 11:00 P.M. She stated that she would like the City to come up with a lighting ordinance to protect the residents, especially for the people that live in the "middle zoning" that has residential near commercial. Chair Maddy asked which lights are giving Ms. Marr the most problem and whether measurements had been taken of the sign lighting. Planning Director Darling noted that measurements had been taken last year and the lights were in compliance with the .-foot candles. She noted that holiday lights have nothing to block the glare and she had contacted Shorewood Landing and asked them to turn them off at 11:00 P.M. She explained that they were not crazy about the idea, but said that as soon as their maintenance man came back from vacation, they would have him put the lights on a timer. Ms. Marr stated that she is looking at the bigger picture in this situation. She stated that she feels the monument light is very dangerous and blinds them when they are in their driveway although it has improved with the adjustment of the fixture. She stated that because they have turned off the Christmas lights at Planning Director Darling's request, they are now able to see all the other lights such as the flag pole, the lights to the sides and even the windows Commissioner Riedel asked which of the lights were not currently handled by the code requirements. Ms. Marr gave examples of Christmas lights and the roof lighting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Riedel stated that he would be in support of strong restrictions on commercial lighting as well as prohibiting spotlighting in a residential area. He stated that aesthetically, if people choose to light up their property in a way that does not exceed a brilliance standard crossing the property line, he does not think that is within the purview of the City to step in. Ms. Marr stated that this light is shining across Highway 7 into the houses across the highway. Commissioner Riedel asked whether that was in conflict with the code requirements. Ms. Marr stated that she had been told that there is no ordinance for this type of lighting. She reiterated that she feels this company has put up an excessive amount of lighting at this location. She stated that she has been trying to resolve this issue with Shorewood Landing for two years. The Commission stated that they would like to take some time to investigate what the current code addresses with regard to lighting and consider addressing some concerns. Planning Director Darling stated that she will compile some information on the current ordinance and research what other cities are doing with regard to lighting and bring it back to a future meeting. Commissioner Gorham noted that the City of Plymouth has some detailed language regarding lighting in their ordinance and suggested Director Darling contact them. f The City of Shorewood Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Proposal` January 15,2019 The City of Shorewood has a mixture of zones of business and residential in the City and are interactive mostly due to the location of Highways and lakes. I propose a City mandate to control the use of seasonal, commercial and landscape lighting. Commercial lighting Because the city has bumper zoning along with residential living with no City Center, the need to restrict amount of lighting and timing of lighting is needed to protect surrounding residential homes. 1]. Total lighting included in prebuild plat plans. Includes Parking lights, safety lighting for sidewalks \buildings, decoration lighting total for seasonal use, decoration lighting long term. a. Seasonal (Christmas, Chanukah, New Year exc.) The total of lumens would be included in the building plans. Care would be assessed to seek balance with the neighborhood. b. Limitation of use. All commercial buildings would be required to set timers on seasonal lighting limiting use to 11pm year round. This includes apartment/ multiple story deck decorations. c. Decorative Roof lighting With the surrounding cities using white lights outlining roofs, care needs to be used in including or not permitting long -term lighting. Because this kind of lighting is usually a larger bulb, lumens need to be assessed. If this form of lighting is already in place and is determined to exceed lumens. A time limit of 11pm is to be set to spare the surrounding neighborhood. d. Landscape lighting This includes land -based lighting that shines upward or downward to highlight trees or building structures. Care in planning should include positioning that does not interfere with surrounding property or roads. Choice of type lighting should be made at the planning stage. (Spot light, broad light, hooded lighting, LED, incandescent). e. Spot Lighting This includes lighting that is intended for property safety and protection. Most of this lighting is set up as a roof level or second floor level. This type of light is meant to cast a large amount of light. To restore the integrity of near by residential homes from excessive light pollution, flood lighting is to be assessed to changing the type of light used. Motion sensor lighting, hooded or better directed lighting would be considered in older buildings. Measured lumens and distant of light cast would be considered in new buildings and preplanning. 1. 2]. Compliance to use a. Lighting issues should be handled as noise disturbance is handled. Courtesy to surrounding properties is as the law of keeping the peace. b. A warning and informative letter would be sent. c. In case of argument between landowners, some kind of agreement would have to be worked out. The final result would be finalized by the city. d. Lighting presenting a danger to roadways and hindering sight for drivers. Including business signage. Observation and assessment of the problem would be needed to bring the obstructive light into correction. (Moving aim, type or removal). Residential Lighting 1). Excessive Decorative Lighting - Seasonal short term a. For the homeowner with high expectations setting out over 50 strings of lights, a time limit of 11pm would be mandated b. A permit would be issued only to inform resident of the City rules. c. Permit would include the homeowner responsibilities of time limits. 11pm light cut off time. In case of traffic congestion the owner would be responsible for all costs involving police controlling traffic. Safety cones, ropes and parking areas clearly marked and managed with sufficient workers to keep the public safe. d. Complaint management via the permit. The owner would be responsible to work out any complaints from surrounding neighbors. If unable to come to an agreement the City of Shorewood would be the final say in shutting down or resolving the problem. 2). Residential Landscape Lighting Existing Permit a. Additional Lighting added to existing home or landscape, consideration of volume against buildings or tree /plants connected to the building. The effect of overcast lighting on neighbor homes. Owner would be required to show plans and amount of lighting being requested. b. Restriction of beam or upward or downward lighting on landscape lighting on trees or other tall structures. All lights should be shielded so as to limit lower leaking of light and becoming a hazard to drivers and pedestrians. Position of lights should not affect visual sights for roads or other homes. 0 3). Landscape Lighting zoning pre build. a. Landscape lighting would be required to be included in the lay out plan. The consideration of light volume and position would be allowed input by the Public. Knowledgeable listing of types of lights and the amount of distance it casts would have to be included in the pre build. Submitted by Cindy Marr 6015 Chaska Rd Shorewood 952 - 474 -1466 witsgal5 @gmail.com 3. 2/7/2019 CHAPTER 21: ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT Print Bloomington, MN Code of Ordinances (a) Purpose and intent. The city recognizes the health, safety, welfare and aesthetic value of providing lighting standards in the community. This section's provisions are intended to: (1) Promote the public health, safety and general welfare; (2) Establish efficient and cost effective lighting requirements adequate for safety and security; (3) Reduce light pollution, light trespass, glare and offensive light sources; (4) Provide an environmentally sensitive nighttime environment; (5) Discourage inappropriate, poorly designed or installed outdoor lighting by requiring quality lighting design, light fixture shielding and maximum uniformity ratios; (6) Protect motor vehicle operators, pedestrians and adjacent land uses from glare; and (7) Implement the city's Comprehensive Plan. (b) Lighting plan. Except for single- and two- family dwellings, no exterior lighting may be installed prior to approval of a lighting plan by the issuing authority. Modifying approved lighting, including lamp or fixture substitution, requires issuing authority approval. All plans must be signed by a registered electrical engineer or a lighting certified (LC) professional certified by the National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions. The lighting plan must include the following information and attachments: (1) Name of project, developer, property owner and architect /designer (all applicable); (2) Date of initial plan preparation and all amendments; (3) Scale of plan (engineering scale only, at a scale of one inch equals 50 feet or less) with north point indication; (4) An accurate site plan indicating the location of property lines and all existing and proposed land improvements including, but not limited to, buildings, parking lots, aisles and driveways, streets, walkways and accessory buildings; (5) The location and description of all existing over story landscaping unless an approved or proposed landscape plan is provided; (6) The location and height above grade of all proposed and existing exterior fixtures (includes decorative and all mounted lighting) on the property; (7) Control descriptions including hours of operation and type of controls (timer, motion sensor, time clock and the like), the light fixtures to be controlled by each type and control schedule; (8) Two separate photometric plans superimposed on a site plan (see subsection (b)(5) above), one plan with the initial at -grade foot candle levels and the other the maintained at -grade foot candle levels. Photometric points must be on a grid ten feet by ten feet or less across the entire site and a minimum of ten feet or more beyond the lot or parcel property line. Each point must be to the nearest 0.1 foot candle; (9) A luminaire schedule table indicating maximum to minimum uniformities for each specific use area such as parking and circulation areas, pedestrian areas and other common public areas, the type of light 1-3 k) Z) , �k ( /, /M_ http: / /library.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get- content.aspx 05 1/9 2/7/2019 CHAPTER 21: ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT source, light source wattage and initial light output lumens rating, color rendering index, color temperature and light loss factor of each lamp source; (10) Detailed information on each light fixture including copy of the manufacturers catalog information sheet and IESNA photometric distribution type, including any shielding information such as house side shields, internal and /or external shields; and (11) Energy use calculations showing compliance with the State Energy Code, without exemptions. All parking lots regulated by this section are considered public parking lots in the Minnesota State Energy Code. (c) Lighting standards. In addition to the following specific requirements, all exterior lighting must comply with the standards set forth in this section. (1) Prohibition. No person may install or operate any device with light levels other than as specified in this section. (2) Luminaire. A complete lighting unit extending from a support structure, parallel to the ground, consisting of a light source and all necessary mechanical, electrical and decorative parts. The light source, lens and other components do not extend below the cutoff angle for the luminaire where a 90 degree cut -off is required. A luminaire does not include a pole or other support. All lighting, unless specifically allowed in this section, must be 90 degree cut -off with a flat lens design as shown in subsection (c)(3) below. (3) Graphic illustration. (A) Examples of 90 degree cut -off, flat lens fixtures. Figure 21.301.07(c)(3) (4) Architectural lighting of building facades, signs, landscaping or other features. The installation of lighting for architectural, aesthetic or decorative purposes is permitted subject to the limitations in the State Energy Code and the following restrictions. (A) Upward aimed lighting (except for flagpoles) must not exceed 22,500 initial light output lumens per source and must not exceed an average of 15 initial light output lumens per square foot for each facade. All upward aimed light must be fully shielded from public view. (B) Downward aimed lighting must not exceed 45,000 initial light output lumens per source, must not exceed an average of 20 initial light output lumens per square foot for each facade illuminated and must have a 90 degree cut -off with a flat lens. (C) In no instance may the combined upward and downward lighting for building facades exceed 25 initial light output lumens per square foot for each facade illuminated. (D) All landscape lighting shall be less than 500 initial light output lumens per source or the light source must be fully shielded from view and limited to 3,000 initial light output lumens per source fixture. (5) Brightness of signs and unshielded decorative light sources. http: / /Iibrary.amlegal.com /aIpscripts /get - content.aspx 2/9 2/7/2019 CHAPTER 21: ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT (A) Desk to dawn external illuminance standards. (i) Downward aimed lighting must not exceed 200 initial light output lumens per square foot of sign surface illuminated. The source must provide a 90 degree cut -off with a flat lens. (ii) Upward aimed lighting must not exceed 100 initial light output lumens per square foot of sign surface illuminated. The light source must be fully screened from direct view. (iii) In no instance may the combined upward and downward lighting exceed 25 initial lumens per square foot of surface illuminated. (B) Dusk to dawn huninance standards. (i) All sign and decorative light sources must not exceed the luminance standards below: (C) Dawn to dusk hnninance standards. (i) All sign and decorative light sources must not exceed 6,500 nits. (6) Flagpoles. A flagpole may be illuminated by no more than three upward aimed fully shielded spotlight light fixtures per flag. For flag poles up to 35 feet in height, the fixtures must not exceed a combined 40,000 initial light output lumens for flags of 35 feet or less in height. An additional 500 initial light output lumens for each foot in flag height, not pole height, over 35 feet is allowed up to a maximum of 75,000 initial light output lumens. The light fixtures must be placed as close to the base of the flagpole as reasonably possible and recessed into the ground. (7) Canopy lighting. Light fixtures mounted under roof overhangs and canopies must be recessed so that the lens cover is recessed or flush with the bottom surface (soffit) of the canopy and /or shielded by the fixture or the edge of the canopy so that light is restrained to no more than 85 degrees from vertical. Lights must not be mounted on the top or sides (fascia) of the canopy for the purposes of illuminating a portion or the entire canopy. (A) Example of complying recessed canopy light: Figure 21.301.07(c)(7) http: / /Iibrary.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get - content.aspx 3/9 Electronic Graphic All Signs (Except Display, Video or Location Those Sign Types Tinte and Listed in the Next Temperature Signs Column) and Decorative Light Sources Within the residential zoning districts of R -1, R-1 A, RS- 1, R -3, R -4, RM -12, RM -24, RM -50, RM -100, RO -24 125 nits 350 nits and RO -50 or within 500 feet of and visible from protected residential property Within all other zoning districts when greater than 500 feet and not visible from protected residential property 200 nits 425 nits within 500 feet On sites adjacent to I -494, 1-3 5W or within the South Loop District and not visible from a protected residential 300 nits 500 nits property within 500 feet (C) Dawn to dusk hnninance standards. (i) All sign and decorative light sources must not exceed 6,500 nits. (6) Flagpoles. A flagpole may be illuminated by no more than three upward aimed fully shielded spotlight light fixtures per flag. For flag poles up to 35 feet in height, the fixtures must not exceed a combined 40,000 initial light output lumens for flags of 35 feet or less in height. An additional 500 initial light output lumens for each foot in flag height, not pole height, over 35 feet is allowed up to a maximum of 75,000 initial light output lumens. The light fixtures must be placed as close to the base of the flagpole as reasonably possible and recessed into the ground. (7) Canopy lighting. Light fixtures mounted under roof overhangs and canopies must be recessed so that the lens cover is recessed or flush with the bottom surface (soffit) of the canopy and /or shielded by the fixture or the edge of the canopy so that light is restrained to no more than 85 degrees from vertical. Lights must not be mounted on the top or sides (fascia) of the canopy for the purposes of illuminating a portion or the entire canopy. (A) Example of complying recessed canopy light: Figure 21.301.07(c)(7) http: / /Iibrary.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get - content.aspx 3/9 2/7/2019 CHAPTER 21: ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT (8) Building entrances or exits. A light source must be located at each building entrance and exit. (9) Glare. In all zoning districts, all lighting must be arranged so as not to shine directly on any adjoining property. A person must not create light that produces glare clearly visible beyond a property line or creates a sensation of brightness within a visual field so as to cause annoyance, discomfort or impairment of vision. Lenses, deflectors, shields, louvers or prismatic control devices must be used to eliminate nuisance and hazardous lighting to facilitate compliance with this requirement. (10) Parldng structures. Luminaires used for illumination of designated pedestrian walkways in parking structures must be at least two times the average illumination or of a significantly different color value than luminaires used for illuminating vehicle parking and drive aisles. Convex lenses in open parking garages must not extend more than two inches below the source. Fully enclosed and secured parking structures are exempt from the cut -off and lens restrictions. (11) Proof of lighting. A parking lot used exclusively for daylight use or secured to prohibit nighttime use is exempt from the lighting requirements subject to installation of all conduit and material, other than the lighting and lighting supports, subject to approval by the issuing authority. (12) Lighting standards. All exterior lighting must comply with the following standards, which vary by use. In the event more than one use is present, the highest regulatory standards apply. Single- family and two - family dwellings and residential parking lots with fewer than 12 parking spaces are exempt from the minimum light levels required but shall comply with the lights source and height requirements for any lighting installed. Maintained lighting levels shall be calculated at a light loss factor of 0.81 or the actual tested light loss factor for the source, whichever is less. http: / /library.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get - content.aspx 4/9 Nonresidential Uses Residential Zones lrithin 300 Feet of Offrce/Lrdustrial Retail and Service or Uses Protected Residential Uses Oriented Uses Uses Maximum height (grade to top of luminaire — 28 ft. 33 ft. includes base) Maximum power for a 90 degree cut -off — flat 30,000 initial light output in lumens 50,000 initial light output in lumens lens single light source Maximum power for a zero cut -off fixture 3,000 initial light output in lumens 6,000 initial light output in lumens Special controls All lights required for security must be on an alternate circuit. All other exterior lighting must be illuminated no earlier than one hour before the start of business and must be extinguished no later than one hour after the end of business. http: / /library.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get - content.aspx 4/9 2/7/2019 CHAPTER 21: ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT Uniformity ratio (max.:min,) (254 parking 6 max. A min. 10 max,: 1 min. perimeter exempt from this calculation) Maximum height 33 ft, (open air level) Minimum illumination on surface (up to a Maximum power for 90 degree cut -off — flat lens single light 50,000 initial light 70,000 initial light 50,000 initial light 50% reduction allowed for the perimeter 25 ft. 1.0 FC As required for the 1.5 FC 2.0 FC of parking, loading, access or other surfaced specific uses Maximum power for no cut -off 20,000 lumens (source shielded) areas along the property line) fixtures — initial light output in 3,000 lumens 6,000 lumens 6,000 lumens lumens (unshielded) 10.0 FC within a Required — all lights required for security 7.0 FC within 10 radius extending Minimum illumination for primary building 5.0 FC within 5 ft. As required for the ft. of the from the door by a entrance and exits of the entrance /exit specific uses entrance /exit distance equal to after the end of business Max.:min. Uniformity ratio (25- twice the door Not required opening width Minimum illumination for secondary and 2.0 FC within 3 ft. As required for the 2.0 FC within 5 ft. 2.0 FC within 5 ft. emergency building entrance and exits of the entrance /exit specific uses of the entrance of the entrance Minimum illumination on the pedestrian 2.0 FC within 20 access surface from a primary building ft 2.0 FC within 30 ft. 3.0 FC with 30 ft. entrance Minimum illumination on the designated 2 times the minimum illumination level of the area where the crosswalk is located pedestrian crosswalks to the primary entrance Minimum illumination on all pedestrian access surfaces to primary building entrances other Same as the parking surface for the use than listed above Maximum illumination at property line (no 0.5 FC 2.0 FC limit along public street) (13) Lighting for• special uses. All exterior lighting must comply with the following standards, which vary by use type. In the event more than one use is present within a development, the more restrictive requirements apply. http: / /library.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get - content.aspx 5/9 Parking Structures Service Stations and Automobile Dealers Exterior Storage Maximum height 33 ft, (open air level) 33 ft. Maximum power for 90 degree cut -off — flat lens single light 50,000 initial light 70,000 initial light 50,000 initial light output in lumens output in lumens output in lumens source Maximum power for no cut -off 20,000 lumens (source shielded) fixtures — initial light output in 3,000 lumens 6,000 lumens 6,000 lumens lumens (unshielded) Required — all lights required for security must be on an alternate circuit; all other Special controls exterior lighting must be illuminated no earlier Not required than one hour before the start of business and must be extinguished no later than one hour after the end of business Max.:min. Uniformity ratio (25- 10 max.: 1 min. Not required http: / /library.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get - content.aspx 5/9 2/7/2019 CHAPTER 21: ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ft. perimeter exempt) Minimum illumination on 5.0 FC enclosed areas parking surface (up to a 50% for retail uses; 3.0 FC reduction allowed for the enclosed areas for 1.0 FC (when perimeter 25 ft. of the parking, non - retail uses; open 2.0 FC unsecured) loading, access or other air levels are surfaced areas along the regulated as open air property line or ramp) parking lots 10.0 FC within a radius extending from 10.0 FC within 20 ft. the door by a distance of primary entrances; Minimum illumination for equal to twice the 5.0 FC within 10 ft. Not applicable pedestrian entrance and exits door opening width of secondary for pedestrian exits and entrances on all entrances levels 25.0 FC within 35 ft. of 100% closed Vehicle entrance and exits structure and within 2.0 FC Not applicable 20 ft. for structure at least 45% open Minimum illumination on the pedestrian access surface within 4.0 FC Not applicable 30 ft. of a primary building entrance Maximum illumination at property line (no limit along 2.0 FC 0.5 FC public street) (d) Points of measurement. Illumination measurements taken at the property line will be measured at the greatest point of illumination of said property line. Illumination measurements to determine the minimum and maximum illumination internal to a site will be measured by positioning the meter horizontally at ground level at the highest and lowest points of artificial illumination for the area illuminated and shall not include exempt areas. (e) Prohibitions. After the effective date of this section, no person may install any of the following types of outdoor lighting fixtures: (1) Lights with a color rendition index of less than 50 (except for approved architectural lighting); (2) Lights with a color temperature (K) of less than 2,500 K (except for approved architectural lighting); (3) Blinking, flashing, moving, revolving, flickering, changing intensity or color, and chase lighting, except lighting for temporary seasonal displays, lighting for public safety or required for air traffic safety; (4) Any light fixture that may be confused with or construed as a traffic control device; (5) Any upward oriented lighting, including searchlights, beacons and laser source light fixtures, except as otherwise provided for in this section or approved by the City Council for a special event or purpose; (6) The installation or replacement of parking lot and access lighting with an efficacy less than 70 lumens per watt for the luminaire; and http: / /library.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get - content.aspx 6/9 2/7/2019 CHAPTER 21: ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT (7) Building and grounds lighting that operate at greater than 100 watts must have an efficacy of 60 initial lumens per watt unless controlled by a motion sensor. (f) Preliminary and final inspection and certification. Prior to the installation of outdoor lighting, an inspection to verify delivery of the approved lamp, fixture and pole heights must be completed. Before a certificate of occupancy may be issued, a post- installation inspection by the issuing authority must verify compliance with the approved plan depicting the initial foot candles levels. Individual points may not vary more than 20% with the average of all points within 10% of the initial foot candle level on the approved plans. Any deviation beyond these criteria must be remedied prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (g) Exceptions. This section's standards do not apply to the following types of exterior lighting: (1) Ornamental lighting. Low voltage light fixtures (12 volts or less), low wattage ornamental landscape lighting fixtures and solar operated light fixtures having self - contained rechargeable batteries, where any single light fixture does not exceed 200 initial light output lumens; (2) Right -of -way lighting. Public lighting located within and intended for the right -of -way; (3) Temporary lighting. Temporary lighting for approved public sporting events and theatrical, television or performance areas; (4) Required lighting. Lighting required as part of the city adopted Electrical or Building Codes or required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other state or federal agency; and (5) Public safety lighting. Temporary lighting for police, fire or public safety construction and repair personnel. (h) Conformance triggers. Any new lighting designed after the effective date of this section must be in compliance with the requirements of this section. Any lighting legally in existence before the effective date of this section that does not comply with its requirements must carne into compliance upon the occurrence of any of the following events. Any lighting illegally in existence before the effective date of this section must come into compliance immediately upon adoption of this section. (1) Alterations to existing lighting. (A) When poles and support structures are removed and replaced for reasons other than acts of God or accidents, they must be replaced with luminaires, poles and supports that comply with this section; and (B) When luminaires are replaced without replacement of poles or support structure, they must be replaced with luminaires that comply with all provisions of this section except the minimum light intensity provisions of subsection (c)(11) above. In no event, however, may the existing light intensity levels be reduced below existing lighting levels for the parking area. (2) Removal and replacement of parking lot szuface. When less than 50% of the gross area of the parking lot surface on a particular site is removed and replaced, the parking area replaced must be provided with lighting in compliance with this section within 30 days of parking lot completion. If 50% or more of the parking area on a particular site is removed and replaced within one year, the entire parking lot or lots on the site where the construction activity occurs must be brought into full compliance with this section within 30 days of parking lot completion. A parking lot or portion thereof is "removed and replaced" when any portion of the existing parking surface material is removed and a new surface is installed. (3) New parking lots or parking lot additions. When anew parking lot or addition to an existing parking lot is constructed, the new lot or lot addition must be provided with lighting in compliance with § 21.301.06 of this code. (4) New structures, additions or replacements. When a site is improved with new structures or additions to or replacements of existing structures, the lighting for the new structure, addition or replacement on the site must be upgraded with complying lighting and the parking lot lighting must be http: / /library.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get- content.aspx 7/9 2/7/2019 CHAPTER 21: ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT upgraded with complying lighting over a portion of the parking area that is equivalent to the amount of parking that would be required for the new structure, addition or replacement by § 21.301.06 of this code. In the event the new structure, addition or replacement is accompanied by new or replaced parking area, the amount of upgraded lighting area must be that required under this subsection (h)(4), or that required under the combination of subsections (h)(2) and (h)(3) above, whichever is greater. (5) Change of type of occupancy. When the type of occupancy for a portion or entire site or structure is changed, site lighting must be upgraded throughout the site, as necessary, to comply with this section for the structure, or portion thereof, and the parking lot be upgraded for the required parking for the occupancy as established in § 21.301.06 of this code. For purposes of determining the type of occupancy of a site, the occupancy classifications of the State Building Code must be utilized. (6) Unoccupied sites. When a site has been unoccupied for a period of one year, the lighting must be upgraded to frilly comply with this section prior to any reoccupation of the site. (7) Conditions of approval. When a development application is made for a site, the City Council may as a condition of approval require compliance with any or all of the performance standards of this section, and the extent of compliance required in such cases may be greater than that otherwise required under subsection (d) above, if deemed reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to achieve the purposes of this section. (8) Nuisance conditions. Lighting that creates a public nuisance must be brought into compliance upon issuance of orders from the issuing authority. (i) Date for final compliance. Notwithstanding any of the above, all site lighting within the city must be in compliance with the minimum illumination levels at ground level as specified in this section no later than December 31, 2020, unless the site or portion thereof meets one of the following exemptions: (1) The site has an approved lighting plan with installation on or after August 19, 1996, and the lighting has been maintained at the levels on the approved plan; (2) Reserved; (3) The site has an approved lighting plan with installation prior to August 19, 1996, that documents illumination levels of no less than 75% of the illumination levels required in subsections (c)(11) or (c)(12) above for the respective use, provided code complying light fixtures are used and illumination levels are maintained as per the approved plan; (4) The site or portion thereof is mapped and scheduled for acquisition by January 1, 2022, by a federal, state or local government agency. In the event that only a portion of the site is mapped, only that portion is exempt from compliance; (5) The site is planned for redevelopment prior to January 1, 2022, as evidenced by an approved preliminary development plan; or (6) The City Council has approved a variance exempting compliance due to a hardship or special circumstance. 0) Flexibility measures. Site lighting levels in a specific area may be reduced from the standards discussed above subject to the inclusion of the following crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) measures and approval by the City Police Department. These flexibility measures are limited to a total reduction in site lighting levels of 25 %: (1) Enhanced max.: min. Uniformity ratio at or below 3:1 max.:min. qualifies for up to a 10% lighting level reduction; (2) Inclusion of CCTV or sound surveillance devices monitored by security personnel qualify for up to a 10% lighting level reduction; http: / /library.amlegal.com /alpscripts /get - content.aspx 8/9 2/'/2019 CHAPTER 21: ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT (3) Installation of panic buttons, intercoms or emergency phones throughout the parking area qualifies for up to a 5% lighting level reduction; (4) Secured access and use of the parking area qualifies for up to a 5% lighting level reduction; (5) Inclusion of signs and graphics to enhance movements throughout the site qualifies for up to a 3% lighting level reduction; (6) For parking structures, increased parking structure windows or openings to enhance natural surveillance of parking structure occupants qualify for up to a 3% lighting level reduction in the parking structure; or (7) Additional measures identified in a CPTED study submitted and approved with the reduction level determined by the City Police Department. (Ord. 2008 -13, passed 4 -21 -2008; Ord. 2009 -41, passed 12 -7 -2009; Ord. 2010 -1, passed 1 -4 -2010; Ord. 2012 -2, passed 1 -23 -2012; Ord. 2013 -19, passed 8 -19 -2013; Ord. 2015 -5, passed 1 -26 -2015 Ord. 2016 -6, passed 4 -18 -2016; Ord. 2017 -9, passed 5 -1 -2017) http: / /library.amlegal.com /aIpscripts /get - content.aspx 9/9 2/7/2019 CHAPTER 19: ZONING Print Bloomington, MN Code of Ordinances (a) Consent of proper v owner. (1) No person shall construct, erect, place, use or permit the use of any permanent sign or sign structure on private or public property without the express written consent of the property owner or his or her representative. (2) No person shall construct, erect, place, use or permit the use of any temporary sign on private or public property without the permission of the property owner or his or her representative. (b) Required perrrrits. Any sign not exempted from the requirements of obtaining a sign permit as noted in § 19.105 of this code shall be required to obtain a sign permit pursuant to Chapter 14 of this code. (c) Sign characteristics. (1) Grade mounding. Earth mounding inconsistent with the final grade of the land surrounding the sign structure which increases the elevation of the sign shall be included in the measurement of the sign height. Earth mounding created for landscaping and screening is not part of the final grade for sign height computation. See § 19.126.5 for graphic illustration. (2) Logo on sign area. When a sign is of channel construction, up to 25% of the total sign surface area installed may be constructed as a cabinet sign for the purposes of presenting a logo or tag line, installed pursuant to this subsection (c)(2). (d) Illumination of signs. (1) Interference with traffic. No lighting shall be permitted to be used in any way in connection with a sign unless it is so effectively shielded so as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of the main- traveled way of the public roadway or onto any residential property, or is of such low intensity or brilliance as not to cause glare or to impair the vision of the driver of any motor vehicle, or to otherwise interfere with any drivers operation of a motor vehicle. (2) Underground electrical service. All illuminated freestanding identification signs shall have underground electrical service. (3) Luminance levels. Luminance levels must comply with § 21.301.07(c)(5). (e) Sign location. (1) Clear view triangle area. (A) Where otherwise allowed in the setback, no signor sign structures taller than three feet shall be located within a clear view triangle area. (B) On a corner lot, the clear view triangle area is formed by the street right -of -way lines and the line connecting points 15 feet from the intersection of such street right -of -way lines extended. See § 19.126.6 for graphic illustration. (C) On a lot which has a driveway or is next to a lot which has a driveway, the two clear view triangle areas are formed by the street right -of -way line, both sides of the surface edge of the driveway, and the line connecting points 15 feet from the intersection of the street right -of -way line and driveway. See § 19.126.6 for graphic illustration. http: / /library.amlegaI.com /alpscripts /get - content.aspx 1/6 Chanhassen, MN Code of Ordinances Sec. 20 -913. - Lighting. Page 1 of 1 (a) Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. (b) No light which is flashing, revolving or otherwise resembles a traffic - control signal shall be allowed in any area where it could create a hazard for passing vehicular traffic. State Law reference— Similar provisions, M.S. § 169.073. (c) Lighting fixtures on poles shall comply with the following: (1) All fixtures must be shielded, high pressure sodium or light- emitting diode (LED), with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees. (2) Fixture height shall not exceed 30 feet. Recreational facility light poles shall not exceed 75 feet in height. (3) Photometrics shall incorporate existing light fixtures, public or private, that may impact the site. (4) All outdoor light fixtures existing and legally installed prior to February 22, 1999, are exempt from the requirements of this article, unless work is proposed in any one -year period so as to replace 50 percent or more of the existing outdoor light fixtures, or to increase to the extent of 50 percent or more the number of outdoor light fixtures on the premises. (d) Wall-mounted lighting in commercial, industrial and institutional districts shall comply with the following: (1) All wall- mounted light fixtures shall be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees. (e) Lighting shall not be directed skyward except for lighting designed for illuminating the United States of America flag. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 17, 12- 15 -86; Ord. No. 290, § 2, 2- 22 -99; Ord. No. 377, § 118, 5- 24 -04; Ord. No. 479, § 1, 6- 22 -09; Ord. No. 533, 5- 29 -12) 9/4& 4 � a,� 7�elJZ about:blank 1/23/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Sec. 16 -5. - Outdoor lighting. about:blank Page 1 of 14 (a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to encourage the use of lighting systems that will reduce fight pollution and promote energy conservation while increasing night time safety, utility, security and productivity. (b) Exemptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following: (1) This section does not prohibit the use of temporary outdoor lighting used during customary holiday seasons. (2) This section does not prohibit the use of temporary outdoor lighting used for civic celebrations and promotions. (3) Lighting required by a government agency for the safe operation of airplanes, or security lighting required on government buildings or structures. (4) Emergency lighting by police, fire and rescue authorities. (c) Nonconforming uses. (d) (1) Existing fixtures. All outdoor lighting fixtures existing and legally installed prior to February 9, 2003 are exempt from regulations of this section but shall comply with the Appendix E requirements for glare as follows: a. Any lighting used to illuminate an off - street parking area, sign or other structure, shall be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky - reflected glare, where from flood lights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding shall not be directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right -of -way. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the right -of- way line of said street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed four - tenths foot candles (meter reading) as measured from said property. (2) Newfixtures. Whenever a light fixture that was existing on February 9, 2003 is replaced by a new outdoor light fixture, the provisions of this section shall be complied with. 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Intensity. No light source or combination thereof which cast light on a public street shall exceed one foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the right -of -way line of said street nor shall any light source or combination thereof which cast light on adjacent property exceed four - tenths foot candles (meter reading) as measured at the property line, per the method outlined in subsection 16 -5(e). Page 2 of 14 (e) Method of measuring light intensity. The foot candle level of alight source shall be taken after dark with the light meter held six inches above the ground with the meter facing the light source. A reading shall be taken with the light source on, then with the light source off. The difference between the two readings will be identified as the light intensity. (f) Performance standards. (1) Residential/public park district standards. In all residential and public districts, any lighting used to illuminate an off - street parking area, structure, or area shall be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential property or from any public right -of -way. Historic style fixtures, as approved by the city council, shall be used in all heritage preservation sites and districts as regulated in chapter 20 of the Code. All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the following provisions: a. The light source shall be hooded or controlled so as not to light adjacent property in excess of the maximum intensity defined in subsection 16 -5 (d). b. Bare light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right -of -way, unless part of a permanent or decorative fixture. (2) Business district standards. Any lighting used to illuminate an off - street parking area, structure, or area shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any adjoining property or from any public right -of -way. Historic style fixtures, as approved by the city, shall be used in all heritage preservation sites and districts as regulated in chapter 20 of the Code, as well as throughout the city where deemed appropriate. All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the following provisions: a. The luminaire shall contain a cutoff which directs and cuts off the light at an angle of 90 degrees or less. b. Light sources shall not be permitted so as to light adjacent property in excess of the maximum intensity defined in subsection 16 -5(d). about:blank 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances (3) Page 3 of 14 c. Architectural /historical light fixtures that feature globes that are not shielded, or lighting of entire facades or architectural features of a building shall be approved by the city council in compliance with requirements of the Design Standards. In no case shall the light affect adjacent property in excess of the maximum intensity defined in subsection 16 -5(d). d. The maximum height of the fixture and pole above the ground grade permitted for light sources is 18 feet. A light source mounted on a building shall not exceed the height of the building. In no case shall the height of a light source mounted on a pole or on a building exceed the height limits of the zoning district in which the use is located, or the 18 feet height limitation specified above, except as otherwise provided in this Appendix E. e. Location. 1. The light source of an outdoor light fixture shall be setback a minimum of five feet from a street right -of -way and three feet from an interior side or rear lot line. 2. No light sources shall be located on the roof unless said light enhances signage or the architectural features of the building and is approved by administrative permit. f. Hours. 1. The use of outdoor lighting for parking lots serving commercial and industrial businesses shall be turned off one hour after closing, except for approved security lighting. 2. All illuminated on- premise and off - premise signs for advertising purposes shall be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise except that said signs may be illuminated while the business facility on the premise is open for service. g. Direct or reflected glare from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding shall not be visible from any adjoining property. about:blank 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 4 of 14 Outdoor recreation. Outdoor recreational uses such as, but not limited to, baseball fields, football fields, skating rinks, docks, and tennis courts have special requirements for night time lighting. Due to these unique circumstances, a conditional use permit shall be required for outdoor lighting systems which do not comply with the regulations of this section. a. No outdoor recreation facility whether public or private shall be illuminated after 11:00 p.m., except for required security lighting. b. Off - street parking areas for outdoor recreation uses which are illuminated shall meet the requirements stated for business applications as found in subsection 16- 5(f)(2). c. The provisions for a conditional use permit, article 4 of this Appendix E, are considered and satisfactorily met. (4) Outdoorsigns. Signs shall only utilize illuminating devices mounted on top and facing downward of the display structure or lighting directed up toward the sign provided the light source is positioned to prevent glare directed toward any adjoining property or any right -of -way. No internal or back lighting of signs shall be allowed. Outdoor sign lighting shall comply with all provisions of this section, article 24 of this Appendix E, and the design standards. ( Ord. No. 504, § 1, 10 -7 -2013 ) (g) Prohibitions. The following outdoor lights are prohibited within the city: (1) The use of search lights for any business shall be limited to not more than four events per calendar year. During any one event, the use of search lights shall be limited to five days consecutively and shall not be used between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and sunrise. (2) Flashing lights. (h) Submission ofpians. All applications, except single - family residential, that include outdoor lighting must include evidence the proposed outdoor lighting will comply with this section, The application shall contain the following information, in addition to other required information: (1) Site plans indicating the location on the premises of all illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, reflectors and other lighting devices. (2) about:blank 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 5 of 14 Description of the type of illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, reflectors, and other lighting devices. The description may include, but is not limited to, catalog cuts by manufacturers and drawings (including sections where required). (3) Photometric plans illustrating the angle of the cutoff or light emissions, and illumination field of the proposed site lighting. ARTICLE 24. - SIGNS Sec. 24 -1. - Signs regulations. The purpose of this Appendix E is to further substantial governmental interest in pedestrian safety, traffic safety, environmental protection and aesthetics. Sec. 24 -2. - Permits required. Except as herein provided it shall be unlawful for any person to erect, alter, or relocate within the city any sign as defined in this Appendix E without first obtaining a permit to do so from the zoning administrator and making payment of the permit fee. (1) Application for permits shall be made upon a form provided by the zoning administrator, and shall state or have attached thereto the following information and shall include the sign permit fee set by the city council from time to time. (2) Unless waived by the zoning administrator, two blueprints or ink drawings of the plans and specifications and method of construction and attachment to the building or in the ground shall be submitted with the application. (3) Unless waived by the zoning administrator, a copy of stress sheets and calculations showing how the structure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount required by this and all other laws and ordinances of the city. Sec. 24 -3. - General provisions applicable to all signs. (a) The design and construction standards as set forth in the Uniform Sign Code, as may be amended, are hereby adopted. about:blank 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 6 of 14 (b) The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the state's electrical code. Electrical service to such sign shall be underground. (c) Any sign, signal, marking or device which purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles any official traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or emergency vehicle signs, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic - control device or any railroad sign or signal shall be prohibited. (d) Signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained and kept in a safe condition. Sign or sign structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated, or defaced shall be reprinted, repaired, or replaced by the owner or agent of the building upon which the sign stands. The ground around any sign shall be kept free of weeds and litter in conformance with chapter 16 of the Code. (e) No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the city building official. (f) No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on rocks, fences or trees nor interfere with any electric light, power, telephone, or telegraph wires or the supports thereof. (g) Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic. Nor shall such signs interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. This includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. (h) No sign shall be placed within any drainage or utility easement or within the public right -of -way except by the issuance of a license agreement in accordance with article 25 of this Appendix E. (i) No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a stand pipe or fire escape. Q) A freestanding sign or sign structure constructed so that the faces are not back to back shall not have an angle separating the faces exceeding 20 degrees unless the total area of both sides added together does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area for that district. (k) about:blank 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 7 of 14 No sign or sign structure shall be placed on or protrude over the public right -of- way except wall (maximum protrusion 18 inches), canopy, awning, marquee, and nonilluminated sandwich board signs not to exceed eight square feet per side. All signs located over public right -of -way or over any public or private access route (sidewalk, etc.) shall be located a minimum of eight feet above surface grade. (1) The top edge of 'a wall sign shall not extend above the mean level of the roof, except where there is a mansard roof, in which case the sign shall not exceed the height of the mansard. (m) If a sign is not a part of the principal structure or attached thereof, the sign shall conform to the Appendix E setback requirements. (n) The area of a sign or area within a sign frame shall be used to calculate the square footage of the sign area. Should letters or graphics be mounted directly on a wall or fascia or in such a way as to be without a frame, the dimensions for calculating the square footage shall be as in the definition of sign area, as found in article 2 of this Appendix E. Any symbols, flags, pictures, working figures or other forms of graphics printed on or attached to windows, walks, awnings, freestanding structures, suspended by balloons or kites or on persons, animals or vehicles shall be considered as a sign. (o) The owner or agent of the building and property shall remove any sign that has become obsolete by reason of termination of the business or vacation of the premises. (p) The owner, lessee, or manager of the property where a sign is located shall remove or correct a sign within 30 days of the receipt of written notice from the zoning administrator that the sign is in violation or prohibited by this Appendix E. (q) All signage shall comply with the design standards and the requirements of the heritage preservation commission, where applicable, as found in chapter 20 of the Code. Sec. 24 -4. - Prohibited signs. The following signs are hereby prohibited: (1) Off - premises signs except for those allowed under sec. 24 -6(4). (Ord. No. 471, § 1, 9 -6 -2011) about:blank 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 8 of 14 (2) Except for traffic control, all signs are prohibited within the public right -of- way or easements except that the zoning administrator may grant an administrative permit to locate signs, banners and decorations on or within the right -of -way, as allowed in subsections 24 -3(h) and 24 -3(k). (3) Revolving beacons, revolving signs, moving signs or parts thereof, zip flashers, flashing signs or similar devices, excepting time and temperature information, official signs or barber poles. (4) Content classified as "obscene" as defined by Minn. Stats. § 617.241. (5) 'Artificially lit roofs or walls or portions thereof, except for security or to highlight architectural building features in accordance with section 16 -5. (6) ,; Illuminated signs which change in color or intensity of light, flash, scroll, or are animated other than electronic reader boards for time and temperature or official signs and non - electronic reader boards and barber poles as permitted under the B District sign allowances of this article. Electronic and non - electronic reader boards shall be maintained such that any loss of letters or illumination of letters shall necessitate discontinuance of sign use, until all letters and messages can be restored. (7) Pylon signs. (8) Changeable copy signs, electronic. (9) Electronic graphic display signs. (10) Multivision signs. (11) Roof signs. (12) Signs painted, attached or in any other manner affixed to trees or similar natural surfaces, or attached to utility poles, bridges, towers, or similar public structures. (13) Video display signs. Sec. 24 -5. - Permitted signs requiring no permit. The following signs shall be permitted without a permit: (1) Official signs. (2) about:blank 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances subject business. Page 10 of 14 b. Display of such signs is permitted only during the business hours of the subject business. c. Such signs shall not impede pedestrian traffic or access to other public improvements, d. Such signs shall not be less than three feet no exceed five feet in height, and no less than three square feet or greater than six square feet in area. (Ord. No. 471, § 2, 9 -6 -2011; Ord. No. 541, § 3, 7 -18 -2016 ) Sec. 24 -6. - Temporary signs requiring an administrative permit, The following signs shall require an administrative permit in compliance with article 8 of this Appendix E. (1) Banners, flags, posters, pennants, ribbons, displays, streamers or spinners or inflatable devices used as a sign on private property or in the public right -of- way as specified in section 24 -4 of this Appendix E, and as defined in article 2 of this Appendix E. (2) The use of searchlights as permitted in section 16 -5 of this Appendix E. (3) Temporary signs, on- premises. The use of banners, pennants, displays and similar temporary and portable signs in areas zoned commercial shall be limited to a period not to exceed 30 days annually. The total time period for the use of temporary and portable signs for any property shall not exceed 60 days annually. There shall be no more than three such signs on any parcel and the total signage shall not exceed 30 square feet. Temporary on- premises signs shall not be placed in the public right of way. (4) Temporary signs, off - premises. Off - premises temporary signs shall be limited to non commercial Excelsior entities, displayed no more than ten business days, and located on private, city property or in the public right of way. (Ord. No. 471, § 3, 9 -6 -2011) Sec. 24 -7. - Nonconforming signs. about:blank 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 13 of 14 width of a lot for purposes of this Appendix E shall be the front. For buildings with multiple public right -of -way or public trail frontages, no more than 60 percent of the allowable sign area of the entire building shall be allowed on one building side. (3) No individual sign surface shall exceed 75 square feet in area, nor shall two or more signs be so arranged and integrated as to create a sign area of over 100 square feet. (4) Projecting signs shall not exceed 8 square feet of sign space, extend more than five feet into the public right -of -way, nor be lower than seven feet above the public sidewalk. (5) Awning or canopy signs shall not exceed seven square feet in size or eight inches in height, and shall be located in the lowest section of the awning /canopy and parallel to the building. (6) Freestanding signs that meet the Preservation Design Manual standards for properties located within the Excelsior Downtown Historic District. Monument signs no more than eight feet in height shall be permitted outside the Excelsior Downtown Historic District only as conditional uses in conformance with article 4 and article 24 of this Appendix E. (7) Motor fuel facilities. Signs for motor fuel facilities shall be regulated by the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the facility is located, except that within a sign, an area not to exceed ten square feet shall be allowed for non - electronic changeable copy identifying current fuel prices in accordance with Minn. Stats. § 239.751. ( Ord. No. 541 § 3 7 -18 -2016 ) Sec. 24 -11. - General provisions regulating use of artificial light sources for illuminated signs. (a) No internal or back lighting of signs shall be allowed. All artificially illuminated signs shall only use that amount of artificial light as is needed to light the sign. All signage shall utilize illuminating devices mounted on top and facing downward of the display structure or lighting directed up toward the sign. Specifically, wattage and lumen output of all light sources shall be kept to the minimum necessary to accomplish this purpose. All lighting shall be of a warm color and glare or reflected about:blank 1/25/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 14 of 14 light which is a by- product of all light shall be kept to a minimum. Artificial light sources shall not be placed at any height taller than is essential to accomplish the intended purpose. (b) Flashing signs shall be prohibited in all zoning districts.. (c) All signage shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards found in section 16 -5 of this Appendix E. (d) Artificial light fixtures shall be of a design such that the light sources, i.e., the light bulb is fully enclosed by opaque material and does not project beyond them, and such that light may be transmitted in only one direction except that incandescent light bulbs with a wattage of 50 watts or less or neon tubes need not be fully enclosed. Any diffusers must be flush mounted to the opaque fixture such that no part of the light source, the diffuser itself, or the like, projects beyond the opaque portion of the fixture. (e) All artificial light sources shall be contained in fully opaque fixtures which control the light such that the light is directed either straight down or straight up, or is located so close to the sign that there is no broadcast or glare of light beyond the sign. It is intended that the visibility of the light source itself, i.e., the light bulb, be minimal. (f) All artificial illumination of signs shall be turned off at the close of business or at 11:00 p.m., whichever occurs later. ( Ord. No. 504, § 2,10-7-2013 ; Ord. No. 541, § 3, 7-18-2016) Sec. 24 -12. - Variance. The city council may approve a variance, in conformance with article 6 of this Appendix E. (Ord. No. 429, 7 -21 -2008) about:blank 1/25/2019 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE 21105.05. TRAFFIC SIGHT VISIBILITY: Except as may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, and except for a governmental agency for the purpose of screening, no wall, fence, structure, tree, shrub, vegetation or other obstruction shall be placed on or extend into any yard or right -of -way area so as to pose a danger to traffic by obscuring the view of approaching vehicular traffic or pedestrians from any street or driveway. Visibility from any street or driveway shall be unobstructed above a height of three feet, measured from where both street or driveway center lines intersect within a triangular area described as beginning at the intersection of the projected curb line of two intersecting streets or drives, thence 30 feet along one curb line, thence diagonally to a point 30 feet from the point of beginning along the other curb line. The exception to this requirement shall be where there is a tree, planting or landscape arrangement within such area that will not create a total obstruction wider than three feet. These requirements shall not apply to conditions that legally exist prior to the effective date of this Chapter unless the Zoning Administrator determines that such conditions constitute a safety hazard. (Amended by Ord No 2002 -32, 11126102) 21105.06. EXTERIOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall comply with the following standards: Subd. 1. Purpose and Scope. The purpose of this Section is to establish exterior lighting requirements that will 1) permit reasonable uses of lighting for night -time safety, utility, security, productivity, enjoyment and commerce, 2) minimize glare, obtrusive light and artificial sky glow by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive or unnecessary, 3) conserve energy and resources to the greatest extent possible and 4) help protect the natural environment from the damaging effects of night lighting from man -made sources. Subd. 2. Use of Lighting Zones. (a) Using Table 1 as a guide, the City Council shall determine and maintain Lighting Zones within the boundaries of the City. (b) The lighting zones established by this Ordinance are hereby set forth on the Plymouth, Minnesota Lighting Zone Map; and said map is hereby made a part of this Ordinance; said map shall be known as the "Plymouth, Minnesota Lighting Zone Map ". Said map and all notations, references, and data shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this Ordinance and shall be as much a part of it as if all were fully described herein. It shall be the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator to maintain said map, and amendments thereto shall be recorded on said Lighting Zone Map within 30 days after official adoption of amendments. The official Lighting Zone Map shall be kept on file in the City Hall. The Lighting Zone of a parcel or project shall determine the limitations for lighting as specified in this Section. 21105 -3 p 1 ymd PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE (c) Amendments to the Lighting Zones shall be processed according to the procedures established in Section 21010 of this Chapter. Table 1— Lighting Zone Ratings and Characteristics Subd. 3. Applicability. (a) All outdoor lighting fixtures (luminaires) in Lighting Zone 2, and all outdoor lighting fixtures on non - residential properties in Lighting Zones 0 and 1 shall be installed in conformance with the provisions of this Section and Section 21155 (Sign Regulations) as applicable as well as the latest rules, codes and regulations, including but not limited to OSHA, National Fire Codes of Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Minnesota State Building Code, and National Electrical Code. In addition, all luminaires shall be installed under appropriate permit and inspection. (b) Lighting on single- and two - family homes, manor homes, and townhouses is subject only to the regulations as outlined in Subd. 6 and in Subd. 7 (c) of this subsection. (c) Lighting in the public right -of -way is not regulated by this Section. However, it is recommended that all such lighting conform to the regulations in this Section. 21105 -4 �' "" I F- i ✓ r r' @ ,� .✓ f I ! i t/ l / 1 /'" Y f .� �'"tb` k, yc � .� „�, >,,, �. ',`�„f,.• a,�„r �., ��.����.,�,��', �d���.,,f. -. ,� cr'`t�s,..� -,”' ,,,�°F, '���,,.,,,c , r`',', u- � ,,,, �_� � ,� F, �,,L���,��fs,.����� LZO No ambient Natural areas (City -owned open space as lighting defined in the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan). LZ1 Low ambient Low and medium density residential areas, lighting (generally properties guided Living Area -1, Living Area -2, Living Area -3). LZ2 Moderate High density residential areas (properties ambient lighting guided Living Area -4, Living Area -5), shopping and commercial districts (generally properties guided Commercial, City Center and Commercial Office), industrial parks and districts (properties guided Planned Industrial), City playfields and major institutional uses and mixed use districts. LZ3 Moderately high By conditional use permit only. ambient lighting Subd. 3. Applicability. (a) All outdoor lighting fixtures (luminaires) in Lighting Zone 2, and all outdoor lighting fixtures on non - residential properties in Lighting Zones 0 and 1 shall be installed in conformance with the provisions of this Section and Section 21155 (Sign Regulations) as applicable as well as the latest rules, codes and regulations, including but not limited to OSHA, National Fire Codes of Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Minnesota State Building Code, and National Electrical Code. In addition, all luminaires shall be installed under appropriate permit and inspection. (b) Lighting on single- and two - family homes, manor homes, and townhouses is subject only to the regulations as outlined in Subd. 6 and in Subd. 7 (c) of this subsection. (c) Lighting in the public right -of -way is not regulated by this Section. However, it is recommended that all such lighting conform to the regulations in this Section. 21105 -4 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Subd. 4. General Performance Standards: (a) Luminaire shielding and installation requirements. Luminaires within 300 feet of a residential property line shall be equipped with side shielding (house side shielding), except that luminaires mounted at a height of 12 feet or lower shall be exempt from this requirement provided they meet IESNA UO rating. (b) Height Limits. (1) Pole mounted lighting. Lighting mounted onto poles or any structures intended primarily for mounting of lighting shall not exceed a mounting height of 40 percent of the horizontal distance of the light pole from the property line, nor a maximum height according to Table 2, whichever is lower. Height includes the base and the pole heights. Table 2 — Maximum Lighting Mounting Height in Feet � � -2-MVP ` r"",.as.'r Jf ":r� �$ 7.' J,r a� mss'' � ✓ t .,�r ? �''+ /T7.�'�°',' i� y r�.,�Y ✓ Y �'� 'XYc^'i�r"�'z ���'1 ,i`���`';�; %� "��+ '`; 9r � ES 3 z $'( [ y�� fy � q +q� Y °1" 4 �'✓���"� � %�zs r -lkiv" -:, x.� ✓ ��.�' / J= � £� � . �r,rr a / . I'z r� a ,��T 1� � r a .r" <� x g a �y y' k� ^� F @Ayy�y'il�(.' if�.3n LZO 25 feet 12 feet 4.5 feet LZ 1 25 feet 18 feet 8 feet LZ2 30 feet 18 feet 15 feet LZ3* 30 feet 18 feet 15 feet *By conditional use permit only. (2) Exceptions for pole heights. a. Mounting heights greater than 40 percent of the horizontal distance to the property line but no greater than permitted by Table 2 may be used provided that the luminaire has a BO rating if ideally oriented or a GO rating if not ideally oriented. b. Lights specifically for driveways, and then only at the intersection of the road providing access to the site, may be mounted at any distance relative to the property line, but may not exceed the mounting height listed in Table 2. C. Landscape lighting may be installed in a tree. (3) Lights mounted to buildings or structures. Lighting mounted onto buildings or other structures shall not exceed a mounting height greater than four feet higher than the tallest part of the building or structure at the place where the lighting is installed, nor higher than 40 percent of the horizontal distance of the light from the property line, whichever is less. 21105 -5 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE (4) Exceptions for building mounted lights. a. Lighting for facades may be mounted at any height equal to or less than the total height of the structure being illuminated regardless of horizontal distance to property line. b. For buildings less than 40 feet to the property line, including canopies or overhangs onto a sidewalk or public right of way, luminaires may be mounted to the vertical fagade or underside of canopies at 16 feet or less. C. The top exterior deck of parking garages shall be treated as normal pole mounted lighting rather than as lights mounted to buildings. The lights on the outside edges of such a deck must be side shielded to the property line. (c) Lighting Quality (1) All permanently installed lighting for high density residential developments and all non - residential lighting shall have a minimum CRI of 70. (2) All permanently installed lighting for high density residential developments and all non - residential lighting shall have a CCT of no greater than 4100K. (d) Lighting quantity and luminaire distribution. (1) Total site lumen limit: The total installed initial luminaire lumens of all outdoor lighting shall not exceed the total site lumen limit. The total site lumen limit shall be determined using either the Parking Space Method (Table 3) or the Hardscape Area Method (Table 4). Only one method shall be used per application, and for sites with existing lighting, existing lighting shall be included in the calculation of total initial installed luminaire lumens. The total installed initial luminaire lumens is calculated as the sum of the initial luminaire lumens for all luminaires. Table 3 — Allowed Total Initial Luminaire Lumens per Site per Parking Space Method (May only be applied to properties with no more than 10 parking spaces, including handicapped accessible spaces) S.,h -f N IS 3 7 l',n' Y f l ✓✓� t7? r' �.' '1s1 "1P r^,:�."` "" an 5 ki C» 350 490 630 840 Allowance lumens /space lumens /space lumens /space lumens /space *By conditional use permit only. 21105 -6 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Table 4 — Allowed Total Initial Luminaire Lumens per Site per Hardscape Area Method (May be used for any project) s., ;�,'�„ �, :1,u �L�X��I�IY��Ya %�'���f�,�:�,.r ,.1;.,, ,.% ,,, ,.; v „�,�J�tl�lr 1 �L'�La��.. {� �4z.✓�G j��'At! �:.,. �.U�"a��� Base allowance of lumens per square foot of hardsca el 0.5 1.25 2.5 5 Additional allowances for sales and service facilities. No more than two additional allowances per site. Use it or lose it. Outdoor Sales Lots. This allowance is lumens per square foot of uncovered sales lots used exclusively for the display of vehicles or other merchandise for sale, and 4 8 16 0 lumens/ lumens/ lumens/ may not include driveways, parking or other non -sales areas. To use this sf sf sf allowance, luminaires must be within 2 mounting heights of the sales lot area. Outdoor Sales Frontage. This allowance is for lineal feet of sales frontage immediately adjacent to the principal viewing location(s) and unobstructed for its viewing length. A corner sales lot may 1,000 1,500 include two adjacent sides provided that a 0 0 lumens/ lumens/ different principal viewing location exists LF LF for each side. In order to use this allowance, luminaires must be located between the principal viewing location and the frontage outdoor sales area. 2,000 4,000 8,000 Drive Up Windows. In order to use this lumens lumens lumens allowance, luminaires must be within 20 0 per per per feet horizontal distance of the center of the drive- drive- drive - window. up up up window window window 4,000 8,000 16,000 Vehicle Service Station. This allowance is lumens 0 lumens lumens lumens per refueling bay. per bay per bay bay *By conditional use permit only. When lighting intersections of site drives and public streets or roads, a total of 600 square feet for each intersection may be added to the actual site hardscape area to provide for intersection lighting. (2) Limits to off -site impacts: All luminaires shall be rated and installed according to Tables 5, 6 and 7. A luminaire may be used if it is rated for the lighting zone of the site or lower in number for all B, U and G ratings. Luminaires equipped with adjustable mounting devices 21105 -7 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE permitting alteration of luminaire aiming in the field shall not be permitted. (Amended by Oro' No. 2016 -11, O4126116) Table 5 — Maximum Allowable Backlight Ratings ,/✓ are..... � 'J }} t ✓ (' � { � j �a ��,r'3 n,.U0 ._... �t f t e ��. �� F;`. Greater than 2 mounting heights from U0.._a Ur..�. Ornamental lighting and luminaires not B B3 B4 B5 property line or not ideally oriented UO U1 U2 U3 1 to less than 2 mounting heights from B 1 B2 B3 B4 property line and ideally oriented 0.5 to less than 1 mounting height from BO B 1 B2 B3 property line and ideally oriented Less than 0.5 mounting height from BO BO BO B 1 property line and ideally oriented *By conditional use permit only. 'For property lines that abut public walkways, bikeways, plazas, and parking lots, the property line may be considered to be 5 feet beyond the actual property line for purpose of determining compliance with this table. For property lines that abut public roadways and public transit corridors, the property line may be considered to be the centerline of the public roadway or public corridor for the purpose of determining compliance with this table. NOTE: This adjustment is relative to Tables 5 and 7 only, and shall not be used to increase the Hardscape Area of the site. Table 6 — Maximum Allowable Uplight Ratings NJ 7S / j I r+/ �? ,;`�jT�1 d ,,, \A, ,+/ p, � (r�f rpp � � > r f � 'J }} t ✓ (' � { � j �a ��,r'3 n,.U0 ._... �t f t e ��. �� F;`. Area lighting U0.._a Ur..�. Ornamental lighting and luminaires not UO U1 U2 U3 used for area lighting *By conditional use permit only. 21105 -8 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Table 7 — Maximum Allowable Glare Ratings *By conditional use permit only. (3) Shielding for parking lot lighting: All parking lot lighting shall have a UO rating, except that ornamental parking lot lighting shall meet the requirements of Tables 5, 6 and 7 without the need for external field - added modifications. (e) Required lighting controls. Lighting systems for non - residential properties shall be extinguished or reduced in lighting by at least 50 percent beginning at curfew and continuing until dawn or start of business, whichever is sooner. The reduction shall be determined as an overall average for a site. When possible, the lighting system should be turned off entirely. (1) Curfew. Curfew shall be as follows: LZO, the later of 8:00 PM or close of business LZ1, the later of 8:00 PM or close of business LZ2, the later of 10:00 PM or close of business LZ3, the later of midnight or close of business (by conditional use permit only) (2) Low voltage landscape lighting shall be completely extinguished at the Curfew time stated above or one hour after the site is closed, whichever is sooner. (3) Exceptions to curfew: a. When there is only one (conforming) luminaire for the site. b. Code required lighting for steps, stairs, walkways, and building entrances. C. When in the opinion of the City Council, reduced lighting levels at a given location will cause unacceptable increased risk and design levels must be maintained. 21105 -9 Greater than 2 mounting heights from GO G1 G2 G3 property line or ideally oriented 1 to less than 2 mounting heights from GO GO G1 G1 property line and not ideally oriented 0.5 to less than 1 mounting height from GO GO GO G1 property line and not ideally oriented Less than 0.5 mounting heights from GO GO GO GO property line and not ideally oriented *By conditional use permit only. (3) Shielding for parking lot lighting: All parking lot lighting shall have a UO rating, except that ornamental parking lot lighting shall meet the requirements of Tables 5, 6 and 7 without the need for external field - added modifications. (e) Required lighting controls. Lighting systems for non - residential properties shall be extinguished or reduced in lighting by at least 50 percent beginning at curfew and continuing until dawn or start of business, whichever is sooner. The reduction shall be determined as an overall average for a site. When possible, the lighting system should be turned off entirely. (1) Curfew. Curfew shall be as follows: LZO, the later of 8:00 PM or close of business LZ1, the later of 8:00 PM or close of business LZ2, the later of 10:00 PM or close of business LZ3, the later of midnight or close of business (by conditional use permit only) (2) Low voltage landscape lighting shall be completely extinguished at the Curfew time stated above or one hour after the site is closed, whichever is sooner. (3) Exceptions to curfew: a. When there is only one (conforming) luminaire for the site. b. Code required lighting for steps, stairs, walkways, and building entrances. C. When in the opinion of the City Council, reduced lighting levels at a given location will cause unacceptable increased risk and design levels must be maintained. 21105 -9 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE (f) Prohibited lighting. (1) Mercury vapor lamps (2) Luminaires mounted to aim light only toward a property line. (3) Luminaires mounted in a way so as to cause confusion or hazard to traffic or to conflict with traffic control signs or lights. (g) Following installation of any lighting on a site, the engineer or lighting professional who prepared the lighting plan shall certify in writing that the location, type, mounting height, initial luminaire lumens, and photometric data including BUG ratings all comply with the approved lighting plan. (h) Any new lighting installed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be in compliance with the requirements of this Section. Any lighting in existence before the effective date of this ordinance that does not comply with the requirements shall be considered legally non - conforming. However, if a property owner proposes to replace 50 percent or more of the existing exterior luminaires or standards in any one year period, the luminaires or standards must be replaced in conformance with this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. No. 2015 -15, 05126115) Subd. 5. Light Trespass Limitations. The illuminance levels provided in Table 8 shall be used for enforcement should concerns of obtrusive lighting or questions of compliance arise. This provision shall apply to all exterior lighting, and to interior lighting if the light source is visible off -site. The illuminance values provided in Table 8 shall be measured at the lot line unless said lot line abuts a public street, in which case the illuminance values shall be measured at the centerline of such public street. Table 8 — Light Trespass Limitations (( _t?f� ��gig ys `'° ww � �6N � 9kk) �{0f�r �� ".".., %��. � ad �j Gs ..Y ye g 3 `qix'� l '.x Y .✓,r �/'r, `%5[ ��.� � 9 � f "� `d s f �� �.� �. �,N ",»'�n �� ��, �i? � ' � � R_ ''" ;d f �. j/r t .�, - -;�� ,, Y ' � � ( ',�� fJ 1 . f.'A�'7".h ,.� `.3. _ „0. �/f x, ., n.1 ,,�. , �..�. ... II . . C� y _®1 . � � �,j A7j..�t' ,�.f�/ �r�J J Yn9 F < %�,1fn/� _ ;5' �y.4.�` _ .y .: .`i. ,� � ,m���, ✓ 0.0 foot - candles 0.0 foot - candles LZO 0.1 foot - candles 0.1 foot-candles LZ2 0.3 foot - candles 0.1 foot - candles LZ3 0.8 foot - candles 0.2 foot - candles Subd. 6. Exempt Lighting: The following luminaires and lighting systems are exempt from the provisions of this Section. 21105 -10 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE (a) Lighting required and regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state agency. (b) Situations where fire, police, rescue or repair personnel need light for temporary emergencies or road repair work. (c) Temporary seasonal lighting provided that individual lamps are less than 10 watts and 70 lumens. (d) Temporary lighting for theatrical, television and performance areas. (e) Soffit or wall- mounted luminaires with less than 375 initial luminaire lumens and permanently attached to dwellings (including multi - family residence but excluding hotels or motels) at a height not to exceed 20 feet above the adjacent grade. (f) Lighting in swimming pools and other water features governed by Article 680 of the National Electrical Code. (g) Code required exit signs. (h) Code required lighting for stairs and ramps. (i) Interior lighting, except as addressed by Section 21105.06, Subd. 5 of this Section. Subd. 7. Special Purpose Lighting. (a) High intensity lighting. The following lighting systems are prohibited from being installed except by administrative permit. (1) Aerial lasers. (2) Skytrackers. (3) Motion detection security lighting, except that such lighting for single- and two - family homes shall be permitted and shall be exempt from the requirement for an administrative permit. (b) Other special lighting. (1) Lighting systems not complying with the technical requirements of this Section but consistent with its intent may be installed for the following applications upon issuance of a conditional use permit. Each request for a conditional use permit shall be evaluated based upon the 21105 -11 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE standards and criteria set forth in Section 21015.02, Subd. 4 of this Chapter. (i) Outdoor athletic fields and recreation areas. (ii) Construction lighting. (iii) National and State flag lighting with spotlights greater than 3,400 lumens in LZ2 and LZ3 and 2,000 lumens in LZO and LZL (iv) Floodlighting of buildings over two (2) stories high. (v) Public monuments, public buildings and religious institutions. (vi) Ornamental lighting in LZO and LZ1. (2) To obtain a conditional use permit, applicants shall demonstrate that the proposed lighting installation: (a) Is not within LZO or LZ1, except for ornamental lighting and necessary construction lighting. (b) Utilizes fully shielded luminaires and, if required, side shielded and internally shielded luminaires that are installed in a fashion that maintains the shielding characteristics unless certified in writing by a registered engineer or by a certified lighting professional that such shielding is impractical. Where fully shielded fixtures cannot be utilized, acceptable luminaires shall include only those that are installed with maximum aiming angles of 65 degrees above nadir. Said aiming angle shall be measured from nadir as defined by an independent testing agency using Type B photometry as defined by the IES. (c) Has received every reasonable effort to mitigate light trespass and light pollution, supported by a signed statement from a registered engineer or by a certified lighting professional describing the mitigation measures. (d) Complies with all the technical requirements of this Section after curfew, with the following exception: No illumination of athletic fields shall be permitted after 11:00 PM, except to conclude a scheduled event that was in progress before 11:00 PM and circumstances prevented concluding before 11:00 PM. (c) Lighting for single and two family homes, manor homes, and townhouses. 21105 -12 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE (1) Lighting systems for single family homes in all Lighting Zones shall be in compliance with the Pre- Curfew Light Trespass Limitations at the lot line provided in Table 8 above. Lighting systems for two family homes, manor homes, and townhouses in all Lighting Zones may consider the Pre - Curfew Light Trespass Limitations at the subdivision boundary instead of the lot line. (2) Motion activated lighting systems for single family homes in all Lighting Zones shall not be activated by movement beyond the lot line, and motion activated lighting systems for two family homes, manor homes, and townhouses in all Lighting Zones shall not be activated by movement beyond the subdivision boundary. (3) Lighting systems for single family homes, two family homes, manor homes, and townhouses in all Lighting Zones that provide lighting, or are intended to provide lighting, for recreational purposes (i.e., sport courts, hockey rinks, or other similar features) shall direct lighting downward and inward from the perimeter lot boundaries, shall not exceed 15 feet in height, and shall be turned off between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. (Amended by Orel. No. 2013 -27, 10122113) 21105.07. SMOKE: The emission of smoke by any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC 7017. 21105.08. DUST AND OTHER PARTICULATE MATTER: The emission of dust, fly ash or other particulate matter by any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC 7011. 21105.09. AIR POLLUTION: The emission of air pollution, including potentially hazardous emissions, by any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by Minnesota Statutes 116, as may be amended. 21105.10. NOISE: Noises emanating from any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by 2025 of the City Code. (Amended by Orel. No. 2000 -06, 02129100) 21105 -13 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE 21155.03. EFFECT: A sign may be erected, mounted, displayed, or maintained if it conforms to the provisions of this Section. No person shall place, erect, modify, or maintain a sign, nor shall a lessee or owner permit property under their control to be used for such sign, that does not conform to the requirements of this Section, and all other regulations. The effect of this Section, as more specifically set forth herein, is to: Subd. 1. Allow a wide variety of sign types in commercial zones, and a more limited variety of signs in other zones, subject to the standards set forth in this Section. Subd. 2. Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to the principal use of a site in all zones when in compliance with the requirements of this Section. Subd. 3. Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination or other physical characteristics negatively affect the environment and where the communication can be accomplished by means having a lesser impact on the environment and the public health, safety and welfare. Subd. 4. Provide for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Section. (Amended by Ord. No. 2007 -04, 01123107) 21155.04. SEVERABILITY: If any subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Section is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Section. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the regulations in each subsection, sentence, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. (Amended by Ord. No. 2007 -04, 01123107) 21155.05. GENERAL REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS: The following standards shall apply to all signs in all districts as permitted by this subdivision unless specifically set forth otherwise by this Section. Determination as to the applicability of the standards to any given sign shall rest with the Zoning Administrator subject to the administrative appeal procedures set forth in this Section. Subd. 1. All signs hereafter erected or maintained, except for official or traffic signs, shall conform to the provisions of this Section; with other applicable ordinances and regulations of the City; and, relative to all federal and state highways, with the Minnesota Outdoor Advertising Control Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 173.01, as amended. Subd. 2. Unless specifically prohibited, all signs may be illuminated internally or by reflected light subject to the following: 21155 -2 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE (a) The light source shall not be directly visible and shall be arranged to reflect away from adjoining premises. (b) The illumination source shall not be placed so to cause confusion or hazard to traffic, or to conflict with official or traffic signs, signals, or lights. (c) Maximum illumination levels: (1) Signs using an LED (Light Emitting Diode) light source shall not exceed a luminance level of 350 candela per square meter (nits) between sunset and sunrise, and shall not exceed a luminance level of 4,500 candela per square meter between sunrise and sunset. (Amended by Ord. No. 2013-27,10122113) (2) Signs using florescent, neon, or incandescent light sources shall not exceed 12 watts per square foot of sign surface area. (3) All signs with illumination shall be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness to ambient lighting conditions (e.g., dusk). (d) No illumination involving movement, by reason of the lighting arrangement, lighting source, changes in either color or intensity of lighting, or other devices shall be permitted. This includes video display signs (except as allowed in Section 21155.05, Subd. 2 (e) and scoreboards as allowed in Section 21650 of this Chapter), or any signs that have blinking, flashing, scrolling, shimmering, and rotating, except that time and temperature signs may be allowed. Furthermore, the transition from one static electronic display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects. (e) An electronic changeable copy sign, electronic graphic display sign, video display sign or a changeable copy sign, in addition to other permitted signage, may be permitted provided the following conditions are met: (1) The message shall not be visible from any public street. (2) The portion of the sign allocated to changeable copy shall be no greater than six square feet. (3) The sign shall comply with all other signage regulations. (f) Electronic changeable copy and electronic graphic display signs shall be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs or immediately discontinue the display. Additionally, the sign owner shall immediately stop the display if notified by the City that the sign is not complying with the standards of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. No. 2008 -09, 03125108) (Amended by Ord. No. 2012 -12, 03127112) 21155 -3 PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Subd. 3. The message or display on electronic changeable copy signs or electronic graphic display signs shall not change more than one time every 15 minutes, except for those signs permitted by Section 21155.05 Subd. 2 (e) and time and temperature signs. A display of time or temperature must remain for at least 15 minutes before changing to a different display, but the time and temperature information itself may change. (Amended by Ord No. 2008 -09, 03124108) Subd. 4. With the exception of theater marquees, changeable copy signage (electronic or not) is not allowed to be placed on walls. Subd. 5. Signs painted directly on building exteriors are not permitted. Subd. 6. Except as otherwise limited by this Section, no freestanding sign shall project higher than 36 feet above grade. Subd. 7. Except as otherwise limited by this Section, no freestanding sign shall exceed 160 square feet in surface area. (Amended by Ord. No. 2008 -09, 03124108) Subd. 8. No wall sign or other sign attached to a building shall project above the roof line or parapet of the building to which it is attached or shall constitute a roof sign as defined by this Section. The exception is that wall signage may be placed partially over the roof area of buildings with flat roofs, provided such signage is located upon a perpendicular building column projecting from an exterior wall, and the signage is counted toward the allowable wall signage for the wall to which the column is attached. No wall signage may be placed higher than the roof line or parapet on a perpendicular building column projecting from an exterior wall that exceeds eight feet above the parapet of the building or roof line of the building (if the building has no parapet). (Amended by Ord No. 99 -5, 01119199) (Amended by Ord. No. 2010 -01, 02123110) (Amended by Ord. No. 2012 -23, 08114112) Feestanding Sign Max. 160 sq. ft. 36' Max AaalAre, t— Subd. 9. No sign shall be erected or placed that resembles any official marker directed by a government agency, nor shall signs display such words as "stop" or "danger" except that in shopping centers these or other traffic signs may be used where deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. Subd. 10. No sign shall obstruct any window, door, fire escape, stairway, or other authorized or required building opening. Subd. 11. No sign shall be erected or placed that, by reason of position, shape, size, or color, would interfere with proper functioning of a traffic sign or with reasonable visibility at a street intersection. Subd. 12. Signs shall not be permitted within the public right -of -way, or within dedicated public easements except the following: 21155 -4 Marie Darling From: Susan Thomas <sthomas @eminnetonka.com> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:28 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: RE: lighting regulations Marie, We don't really have much ... and they are kind of buried in our Performance Standard section: 2. Performance Standards Regulating Exterior Lighting. a) Exterior lighting shall be designed and arranged to limit direct illumination and glare upon or into any contiguous parcel. Reflected glare or spill light shall not exceed five- tenths footcandles as measured on the property line when abutting any residential parcel and one footcandle on any abutting commercial or industrial parcel. Street lights installed in public right -of -way shall be excepted from these standards. b) Mitigative measures shall be employed to limit glare and spill light to protect neighboring parcels and to maintain traffic safety on public roads. These measures shall include lenses, shields, louvers, prismatic control devices and limitations on the height and type of fixtures. The city may also limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting if it is deemed necessary to reduce impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. c) No flickering or flashing lights shall be permitted. d) Direct, off -site views of the light source shall not be permitted except for globe and ornamental light fixtures approved in conjunction with a site and building plan. Globe and ornamental fixtures shall only be approved when the developer can demonstrate that off -site impacts stemming from direct views of the bulb are mitigated by the fixture design or location or both. e) The city may require submission of a light distribution plan if deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the intent of this ordinance. Best, Susan Susan Thomas I Assistant City Planner City of Minnetonka I eminnetonka.com Office: 952 - 939 -8292 From: Marie Darling <MDarling @ci.shorewood.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 5:26 PM To: Susan Thomas <sthomas @eminnetonka.com> Subject: lighting regulations Can you please send over your lighting regulations? We couldn't find them on the website. Thanks! Ni l%�aD/2 G ea° Marie Darling From: Susan Thomas <sthomas @eminnetonka.com> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 4:07 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: RE: lighting regulations We have not regulated holiday lighting in the past. It seems like a very slippery, "first amendment -ish" slope. Here are our sign illumination regs: 8. Sign illumination. a) All illuminated signs must meet the following standards: 1) External illumination on signs must be directed so that the illumination does not interfere with safe traffic operations; 2) Illuminated signs must not be directly oriented to any residential district; 3) No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility. 4) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle. 5) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. b) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon notice of non- compliance from the city. The person owning or controlling the sign may appeal the city's determination through the following appeal procedure: 1) After making the adjustment required by the city, the person owning or controlling the sign may appeal the city's determination by delivering a written appeal to the city clerk within 10 days after the city's non- compliance notice. The written appeal must include the name of a person unrelated to the person and business making the appeal, who will serve on the appeal panel. 2) Within five business days after receiving the appeal, the city must name a person who is not an official or employee of the city to serve on the appeal panel. Within five business days after the city names its representative, the city's representative must contact the sign owner's representative, and the two of them must appoint a third member to the panel, who has no relationship to either party. 3) The appeal panel may develop its own rules of procedure, but it must hold a hearing within five business days after the third member is appointed. The city and the sign owner must be given the opportunity to present testimony, and the panel may hold the hearing, or a portion of it, at the sign location. The panel must issue its decision on what level of brightness is needed to meet the brightness standards within five business days after the hearing commences. The decision will be binding on both parties. c) All signs installed after June 25, 2007 that will have illumination by a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards in this section. /_�) O-U4�__ (� ZONING (e) Sodding and ground cover. All areas not otherwise improved in accordance with approved site plans shall be sodded or seeded. (f) Maintenance. In all districts, required landscaping shall be maintained so as not to be unsightly or present harmful health or safety conditions. Dead plant materials shall be replaced promptly. (g) Tree preservation policy. (1) It is the intent of the city to preserve wooded areas throughout the city and with respect to future site development, to retain, as far as practicable, substantial existing tree cover. (2) Credit for the retention of existing trees which are of acceptable species, size and location may be given to satisfy the minimum number requirements set forth in this section. (3) The following restrictions shall apply to all development occurring in wooded areas: a. Structures shall be located in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved. b. Prior to the granting of a building permit, it shall be the duty of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the cutting of trees on the site. C. Forestation, reforestation or landscaping shall utilize a variety of tree species and shall not utilize any species presently under disease epidemic. Species planted shall be hardy under local conditions and compatible with the local landscape. d. Development including grading and contouring shall take place in such a manner that the root zone aeration stability of existing trees shall not be affected and shall provide existing trees with a watering equal to one -half the crown area. e. Notwithstanding the restrictions in this subsection, the removal of trees seriously damaged by storms, or other natural causes, shall not be prohibited. (Code 1987, § 350.725; Ord. No. 61 -1993, § 350.725, 2 -23 -1994) Sec. 129 -318. Glare. In all districts, any lighting used to illuminate an off - street parking area, sign, or other structure, shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky - reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, shall not be directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right -of -way. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one footcandle (meter reading) as measured from the centerline of said street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed 0.4 footcandle (meter reading) as measured from said property line. (Code 1987, § 350.730; Ord. No. 61 -1993, § 350.730, 2 -23 -1994) Sec. 129 -319. Bulk storage. All uses associated with the bulk storage of oil, gasoline, liquid fertilizer, chemicals, and similar liquids shall require a conditional use permit in order that the governing body may have assurance that fire, explosion, or water or soil contamination hazards are not present (that would be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare). All existing, aboveground liquid storage tanks having a capacity in excess of 10,000 gallons shall secure a conditional use permit within 24 months following enactment of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. The City Council may require the development of diking around said tanks. Diking shall be suitably sealed, and shall hold a leakage capacity equal to 115 percent of the capacity of the largest, single tank. 129:88 lg"w'l 'll � o' land SIGNS subsection (i) of this section. (c) Motion signs or similar devices shall be prohibited in all districts. (d) No illuminated sign which changes in either color or intensity of light shall be permitted except one giving time, date, temperature, weather or similar public service information. The city in granting permits for illuminated signs shall specify the hours during which same may be kept lighted when necessary to prevent the creation of a nuisance. All illuminated signs shall have a shielded light source and concealed wiring and conduit and shall not interfere with traffic signalization. (e) Signs in the central business district shall not project over public property more than 18 inches. (f) Business signs shall not be painted, attached or in any manner affixed to trees, rocks, or similar natural surfaces, nor shall signs of any type be painted directly on the roof or walls of a building. (g) Signs which interfere with the ability of vehicle operators or pedestrians to see traffic signals or which impede the vision of traffic by vehicle operators or pedestrians are prohibited. Such signs shall also comply with section 129 -322. (h) Signs shall not obstruct any window, door, fire escape, or opening intended to provide ingress or egress to any structure or building or public way. (i) Temporary signs. (1) One temporary real estate sign may be placed in any district for the purpose of advertising the lease or sale of property upon which it is placed. Only one such sign shall be permitted per sheet and /or lake frontage. Such signs shall be exempt from permits and fees providing they meet the following requirements: a. Such sign shall be removed seven days following lease or sale. b. The maximum size of such signs for each district is as follows: 1. In R -1, and R -2 district the maximum size is five square feet. 2. In R -3, R -4 and PDA districts the maximum size is 18 square feet. 3. In B -1, B -2, B -3, and I -1 districts the maximum size is 32 square feet. (2) Temporary real estate promotional signs may be erected for the purpose of selling or promoting a residential project of ten or more dwelling units or any nonresidential project. Such signs shall be exempt from permits and fees; provided that: a. Such sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. b. Maximum height of ten feet. C. Maximum number of said temporary real estate advertising signs shall not exceed two in number. d. Minimum distance between said advertising signs is 500 feet. e. Such signs shall be removed when the project is 90 percent complete, sold, or leased. f. Such signs shall be located no closer than 100 feet to a preexisting residential dwelling unit. g. Written approval from the property owner shall be submitted at the time of City Council review. (3) Temporary banners and pennants employed for grand openings for business establishments, special events or promotions and holidays are not exempt from 119:5 Wayzata, MN Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 3 CHAPTER 814 - ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING REGULATIONS 814.01 - Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to protect and promote the general welfare, health, safety and order within the City of Wayzata through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations and procedures governing existing and future artificial lighting. The provisions of this Chapter are intended to encourage tasteful, appropriate and non - obtrusive artificial lighting for purposes such as landscape and building decoration, parking lot lighting, security lighting, sign lighting, and lighting of other appropriate subjects. The necessity for such regulations has arisen because of significant technological developments in the field of artificial lighting over the last decade. The invention of artificial light sources of extraordinary intensity can cause a nuisance to surrounding property owners because of improper wattage, lumens, direction, fixture design and the like. 814.02 - Definitions. A. "Artificial Lighting" shall mean any form of light other than light generated by the sun or the moon which shall include glare. B. "Fixture" or "Light Fixture" shall mean the mechanical device which the lamp or light source is affixed to or contained in. C. "Opaque" shall mean not pervious to light; light thus cannot pass through an opaque surface. D. "Transparent" shall mean transmitting light so that objects beyond can be seen clearly. E. "Translucent" shall mean transmitting and diffusing light so that objects beyond cannot be seen clearly. 814.03 - General Provisions. The following general provisions shall be applicable to all artificial light sources within the City: A. Artificial light only shall be used for purposes necessary and appropriate to the use about:blank of the property upon which the light is located. 2/5/2019 Wayzata, MN Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 3 Only that amount of artificial light shall be used as is needed to fulfill the intended purpose of the light. Specifically, wattage and lumen output of all light sources shall be kept to the minimum necessary to accomplish said purpose. C. Light sources shall not be placed at any height taller than is essential to accomplish the intended purpose of the light. Light sources attached to a building shall be no higher than the main part of the building's roof. All other light sources shall be no more than 16 feet above the ground. D. Light fixtures shall be of a design such that the light source is fully enclosed by opaque materials and such that light may be transmitted in only one direction (e.g., sharp cut -off or "shoe box" fixtures), except that incandescent light bulbs with a wattage of 50 watts or less need not be fully enclosed. Light fixtures must have flat diffusers or glass flush mounted to the opaque fixture such that no part of the lamp or light source, diffuser, glass or the like projects beyond the opaque portion of the fixture. It is intended that the visibility of the light source itself (e.g., the light bulb) be minimal. E. All light sources shall direct light either straight down or straight up, or shall be located, so close to a building that there is no broadcast or glare of light beyond the building. There shall be no appreciable glare onto adjacent property. 814.04 - Variances. The City Council may approve a variance from this Chapter upon finding that the requested variance will meet each of the following criteria, although it shall not be required to do so: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property and /or structure(s) in question, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to other property and /or structures. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights of the applicant. C. Under the circumstances of the particular situation the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of residents of the surrounding area or of the community as a whole. D. The variance will not conflict with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 814.05 - Non - Conforming Artificial Light Sources. about:blank 2/5/2019 Wayzata, MN Code of Ordinances Page 3 of 3 A. Any artificial light source lawfully existing on January 6, 1981, shall be allowed to continue in use for a period of not more than seven years thereafter, but it shall not be rebuilt, altered, (other than to change the message), or relocated without being brought into compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. After a non- conforming light has been removed, it shall not be replaced by another non- conforming light. B. Whenever the use of a non - conforming light has been discontinued for a period of three months, such usage shall not thereafter be resumed unless in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter. 814.06 - Violations. If any artificial light is in violation of the provisions of this Chapter, the City Manager or his representative shall give written notice of said violation to the owner of the premises. If the owner fails to remove or correct said violation so as to comply with the provisions of this Chapter, then: A. The artificial light source shall be deemed to be a nuisance and may be abated by the City by proceedings taken under Minn. Stats. Ch. 429. The cost of abatement, including legal fees and administrative expenses, may be levied as a special assessment against the property upon which the artificial light source is located; or B. The owner may be prosecuted for violating this Chapter and, if convicted, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the applicable penalties therefor. Each period of ten days within which the artificial light source is not removed or corrected shall be deemed to constitute another violation of this Chapter and shall be punishable as a separate offense. about:blank 2/5/2019 Wayzata, MN Code of Ordinances 927.05 - General Sign Provisions. All signs within the City of Wayzata shall be subject to the following general regulations; Page 1 of 3 A. Sign owners shall be required to maintain the appearance of the ground around all signs detached from buildings and to landscape where possible. B. Sign owners at the direction of the City Building Official, shall be required to repair or remove any sign which becomes unsafe, insecure, unsightly, defaced or a danger to the public. Sign maintenance shall be the responsibility of the underlying fee owner. C. The property owner shall be required to correct /remove a sign upon change of occupancy with the correct information. In no event shall a property owner maintain an incorrect or non - current sign message beyond a one month period. D. No sign or sign structure shall be placed on or extend into the public right -of -way or protrude over any sidewalk, except for wall, canopy, awning, projecting, and marquee signs. All signs located over such areas shall be in accordance with the awning regulations provided in Chapter 315 of the Wayzata City Code. E. The top edge of any wall or building mounted signor object intended as an attention attracting device shall not extend above the roof line, parapet, or facade of the building to which it is attached. F. The construction of all signs permitted under this Section, unless otherwise stated herein, shall be in conformance with the provisions of the Uniform Sign Code published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 1997 Edition which is hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this Section. G. The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the State's Electrical Code. Electrical service to freestanding signs shall be underground. H. ' No sign shall be artificially illuminated in such a way that produces a broadcast of glare or light beyond the sign. In no case shall a shadow exist producing an outline of the sign on the ground or against a building either on or off -site. All illumination of identification signs in residential districts shall be indirect. Artificially illuminated signs shall also be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver. Nor shall such signs interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. This includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. about:blank 2/5/2019 Wayzata, MN Code of Ordinances Signs shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. No private sign shall contain words which might be construed as traffic controls, such as "stop," "caution," "warning," unless the sign is intended to direct traffic on the premises. Page 2 of 3 J. No signs, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on rocks, fences or trees nor interfere with any electric light, power, telephone or telegraph wires or the supports thereof, nor be located within a drainage or utility easement. K. No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window, or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. L. No sign shall be attached to or be allowed to hang from any building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the City Building Official. M. No sign shall be placed in a sight visibility triangle unless it is in accordance with the regulations as established in this Ordinance. N. Except for civic and holiday events as authorized by the City Council, the use of banners, posters, pennants, ribbons, streamers, spinners, search lights and any other similar devices designed and utilized primarily to draw attention to an object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization or business shall require a temporary permit not to exceed a period of three days, except for banners and posters which shall not exceed a period of two weeks. This permit may be granted by the City Manager, or designee, no more than three times during any 12 -month period. Lighter- than -air, inflatable devices and /or balloons shall not be permitted. A copy of the owner's insurance certificate shall be required prior to issuance of a temporary permit. The additional gross sign area of such devices, where applicable, and when added to the existing sign area, shall not exceed 110 percent of the total allowable sign area. For shopping centers, these provisions apply to the entire center as a complex and not to the tenants on an individual basis. O. The use of a temporary and portable sign shall be limited only to charitable, non- profit or civic organizations and shall require a temporary permit not to exceed a period of ten days. This permit may be granted by the City Manager, or designee, no more than three times during any 12 -month period per organization. Portable and temporary signs may not exceed 32 square feet in area unless first approved by Council and shall not be illuminated with any flashing device. Any temporary about:blank 2/5/2019 Wayzata, MN Code of Ordinances electrical connections to such devices shall be made by an approved cord in proper condition from an approved GFI receptacle outlet in accordance with the National Electric Code. Temporary and portable signs shall not be permitted in any residential district. Page 3 of 3 P. At least one address sign identifying the correct property number as assigned by the City Manager or designee shall be required on each principal building in all districts. The number shall be at least three inches in height, but no larger than 12 inches in height. Said sign shall be excluded from the total allowable sign area calculation. No permit shall be required for such address sign. Q. Public directory signs intended to identify a group of businesses, an organization or a public or quasi - public entity may be located upon public property only when first approved by the City Council. Public directory signs shall be required to comply with the provisions of this Section except where, due to unusual and unique conditions that may exist, such as in the East Lake Street area, a special exception may be granted by the City Council to achieve a desired public purpose. R. The design and construction of all signs within the City shall be done with the highest quality materials and workmanship to promote safety and a quality sign appearance. All signs located in residential and commercial areas shall be aesthetically pleasing when designed and constructed and shall relate harmoniously to the terrain, site circulation and existing or proposed buildings that have a visual relationship to the proposed signing. S. Where permitted, internally illuminated signs shall be permitted if only the text or logo portion of the sign is lighted. Back lighting of awnings is prohibited. about:blank 2/5/2019 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952 - 960 -7900 Fax: 952 - 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us • dtyhall @d.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director DATE: March 5, 2019 RE: Item 4E: Commission Schedule and Work Program Section 201.04 of the City Code requires the member of the Planning Commission to elect a new Chair and Vice - Chair. The term of office is one year, but the membership may reelect in- cumbents if they wish to be considered or nominate other Planning Commission members. Both offices are elected by majority vote. Current Chair: Dustin Maddy Current Vice- Chair: Vacant 2019 Work Program Springy of 2019 (Apr -May) • Fire Lane Visits (Weather Permitting) • Development Applications • Other Code Amendments (as time allows) • Lights Summer of 2019 (June - August) • Refine potential Fire Lane code amendments • Development Applications • Code Amendments (as time allows) Fall of 2019 (September — October) • Development Applications • Code Amendments (as time allows) Winter of 2019/20 (November — February) • Development Applications Potential code amendments to consider /discuss: Fire Lane standards as directed by the City Council Lights Accessory Structures CUPS Impervious Surface Coverage PUD regulations to allow for an amendment process, alter the number of hearings required. Exterior storage Conditional use permit standards Zoning permit process Subdivision regulations refresh Fences Fagade materials Small housekeeping edits that accumulate in one year in one project 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule All meetings are considered tentative based on the number of development applications, but would likely follow this schedule. Additionally, the Planning Commission meets officially twice per month and additional meetings may be added as needed. Planning Commission Public Meetings March 5, 2019 April 2, 2019 May 7, 2019 June 4, 2019 July 2, 2019 August 6, 2019 September 17, 2019 October 1, 2019 November 5, 2019 (Potential Election Day) December 3, 2019 January 7, 2020 February 4, 2020 Marie Darling From: Sent: To: Subject: U.S. Census Bureau < census @subscriptions.census.gov> Thursday, February 28, 2019 11:03 AM Planning How the 2020 Census Will Invite Everyone to Respond %t: Of JJ4DU5Q1i0ld& lvft! r ive t1loir C -enSUS tttv3tatititt In the mall. AlMost 5 %OFh0' r,,l& w re ill ip _. tV lbvij e-i iu, I",'RAttals w t r n a c -Isr s t ak rP (W p, It +off. It. it, ✓ze -,WM i, thi? zF»Ia, tits et hom- NAJ,trtxvbotfcty. rrtblk at rhu r henn- phrical lr__atl on 'r +e of At ttcerby arP+ dIk,,J by nasunl diuWp.m. 0 ;,� Less.'tha � 1rcrtt �u,rF�.,d= r d l 6f-� caWAvd to person by,) carwj-, t A,rt , N-Gg4- tlltAt4 m,p sd an they uWn, Sn da thl. kn V%ty iutit tits: 'As r }u, rmm 0 ncithttrnHMnr,a3n AlmAa,ips In ;,.P.14mt a,metetcdn trtdtArl asn:.5 lh t asl; to hr, kl pm,A�'fl 1 Every household will have the option of responding online, by mail, or by phone. What to Expect in the Mail When it's time to respond, most households will receive an invitation in the mail. i Depending on how likely your area is to respond online, you'll receive either an invitation Nearly every household will receive an invitation to participate in the 2020 Census from either a postal worker or a census worker. Most areas of the country are likely to respond online, so most households will receive a letter asking you to go online to complete the census questionnaire. An invitation'to respond online to the 2020 Census. (Some households will also receive raper questionnaires.) A final reminder postcard before we follow up in person.. Areas that are less likely to respond online will receive a paper questionnaire along with their invitation. The invitation will also include information about how to respond online or by phone. Pj encouraging you to respond online or an invitation along with a paper questionnaire. Letter Invitation We plan on working with the U.S. Postal Service to stagger the delivery of these invitations over several days. This way we can spread out the number of users responding online. And we'll be able to serve you better if you need help over the phone. Note: have special procedures to count people who don't live in households, such as students living in university housing or people experiencing homelessness. There are many more ways you can stay connected with us! Join the conversation on social media by following us on: l ter ..... . .. . ..... SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Subscriber Settings I Remove me from All Subscriptions I Help This is an official email from the U.S. Census Bureau. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us (http://www.census.gov/about/contact-us.html). Proactive planning The current wildfire crisis demands that planners become significantly more pro- active and begin to tackle this challenge at the local level. Truckee, California, the High Sierra community where I live, is an example, with its complex land ownership and management responsibilities. The mix of agencies in and around the town includes two local fire districts, the statewide Cal Fire, and the U.S. Forest Service. Creating a comprehensive wild- fire management plan involving all of them is complicated, but planners are well equipped to facilitate such an effort. The first step is a comprehensive wild- fire management plan. If your community's general plan does not contain policies that support and direct the preparation of such a plan, you should consider recommending an amendment that would do so. A CWMP would assess the risk to life and property associated with wildland fires at the community level and, in some cases, at a regional level. It would inte- grate all available information, including weather patterns, slope, aspect, vegetation type, fire history, and location of existing and planned development. Once likely fire patterns are under- stood, traditional planning tools can be used to reduce the risks, including the following: • Long -range planning to steer new devel- opment into the safest areas and away from the riskiest • Capital improvement planning and funding to improve access, fire flows, and firefighting capacity • Neighborhood design that incorporates managed fire breaks (greenbelts, parks, trails, roads, golf courses, and so on) in strategic locations and ensures a per- manent mechanism to maintain them The CWMP should articulate a program of vegetation management on larger parcels (both public and private), designed to slow down the spread of wildfires. It should prioritize fuel man- agement projects based upon risk and k, HISTORY THE 100 -YEAR INFLUENCE OF THE BAUHAUS With the renewed interest in mid - century modern architecture and furniture, it is worth noting that this year is the 100th anniversary of the Staatliches Bauhaus, the renowned German design school. It is also a good time to consider the school's impact on decades of city planning. The Bauhaus began in Weimar, a cultural center in Germany not far from Berlin. It was the brainchild of a young architect named Walter Gropius. His idea was to unite art, design, and industrial education with the aim of providing a better life for all classes of society. Several moves followed, first to a nearby industrial city, and then to an old factory in Berlin in 1932. A year later, the Nazis closed down the operation. In 1937, the Hungarian artist and industrial designer Laszlo Moholy -Nagy founded the New Bauhaus at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. Another refugee, architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, became the school's director. His starkly modern approach to design is evident in major office and residential complexes in Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, and other cities. What was known as the International Style soon caught on across the world. The program called for the rejection of almost all ornament and a limited color palette. In Brazil, Oscar Niemeyer designed a new capital city, Brazilia. Its high rises are impressive, but the streets are often deserted. Smaller versions popped up in U.S. cities, where the same criticism is heard. From the 1950s onward, social reformers argued that the tall glass towers are efficient. They occupy less land than smaller buildings and they allow more sunlight and unobstructed views of local scenery. Real estate interests came out with figures that show a great financial savings for taller buildings. But then there is the other side. In 1981, journalist Tom Wolfe wrote that the International Style was elitist and indifferent to site, climate, and local history. In a 1993 article titled "Bauhaus Blunders," critic Witold Rybczynski condemned a Chicago public housing project called Cabrini ' k " Green. "In the name of housing the poor," he wrote, "the well- meaning social reformers of the 1950s invented a new type of urbanism, I 1 quite foreign to any previous American idea of city planning." Cabrini was, of course, built in the modernist style prevalent at the time. Visit toplanning,org /timeline to learn more. Bauhaus- inspired apartments —Ruth Eckdish Knack, mcp by Mies van der Rohe off Knack is a former executive editor of Planning. Chicago's Lake Shore Drive. include a long -term funding component. California's worst fires this year demon- strated the danger of allowing flammable vegetation to build up amid developed residential and commercial properties. A comprehensive and continuous program to address private property must be in place if we are serious about reducing risk. These are not one -time efforts. Planners have the skills and the tools to lead this effort. The safety of our communities demands not only our complete attention, but also our best work. Getting buy -in and creating a comprehen- sive long -term funding program could take years and will be challenging in many ways, but the risks demand the effort. ■ —Tony Lashbrook Lashbrook recently retired from a 36 -year career as a planner and city manager in the Sierra Nevada region of California. Norb Szczurek, retired division chief for the North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District, contributed to this article. American Planning Association 35 TOE (OMMISSIONER Best Practices /Law Starting Small in Milwaukee f OMETIMES PLANNING WITH A SMALL "p" takes a surprising form. That's the case in Milwaukee, where a former high school biology teacher has sparked the renewal of three local parks and, to some extent, the neighborhoods that surround them. The man in question is Ken Leinbach. As a newcomer to the city in the mid- 1990s, he lived on the east side, near Riverside Park, a 25 -acre public space designed by Frederick Law Olmsted in 1892. Walking or cycling, Leinbach would often stop to chat with local residents along the Milwaukee River, which edges the park. This would be a great place to teach people about nature and conservation, he thought. Taking root As a graduate student, Leinbach researched why some people have a concern for the environment and others do not. "If kids grow up with regular access to nature and with appropriate mentors," he concluded, "they have a good chance of developing an environmental ethic' Seeking a place to carry out his idea, he looked again at the parks only building, a double -wide trailer that field trips. Volunteers help with all the center's programs, from nature study to land stewardship. The volunteers and stewardship staff are largely responsible for reclaiming itself, including clean -up days and neighborhood field trips. Leinbach considers the center itself to be a sort of "third place" —a welcoming space for local residents. It includes classroom space and rooms for exhibits, clubs, and social events. The center now has a fleet of buses to pick up students from some 60 schools that it has contracted with to provide classroom programs and 36 Planning February 2019 more than eight acres of once - polluted land along the river, which is now part of the Milwaukee River Greenway. Their work also led to the creation of the 40 -acre Milwaukee Rotary Centennial Arboretum on former riverfront indus- trial land. The arboretum encompasses parts of Riverside Park. "Our goal," says Lein - bach, "is to inspire people to understand and value nature and to motivate them to create positive change" The surrounding neighborhood bene- fits as well, Leinbach says. "Our first step in creating the Urban Ecology Center was to engage the Riverside Park neighbor- hood in the cleanup." A side effect, he notes, was a notable decline in criminal activity—down by 95 percent by 2004. Reviving neighborhoods The first center proved so successful that Leinbach took on another project —this one in a less prosperous neighborhood. Washington Park is also an Olmsted - designed park. The Urban Ecology Center opened there in 2007 in a building owned by the Milwaukee County Parks. The cen- ter is in the process of negotiating a long- term agreement to expand its activities in the park and to build a new facility. There has been some opposition in this case to a private entity, even a well- meaning one, having a stake in the park. The issue is reminiscent to the brouhaha surrounding the development of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago's Jackson Park, another revered Olmsted Park. A third project is UEC's Menomonee Valley center. It opened in 2012 in the 24 -acre Three Bridges Park on the south side of the Menomonee River. This park, on the site of an abandoned rail yard, is owned by the Milwaukee Redevelop- ment Authority. UEC is part of an ongoing effort to revitalize the entire, 1,200 acre Menomonee River Valley. It is working with a public - private partnership led by the nonprofit Menomonee Valley Partners to prepare a master plan for the valley and to reconnect a distressed neighborhood to the city as a whole. The Urban Ecology branch is located in a rehabbed old tavern and uses the Three Bridges Park as its outdoor classroom. "We see the centers as away to revive neighborhoods, says Leinbach. "In . our case, they are all in older areas and close to schools.' He sees possibilities for similar facilities throughout the U.S. "Milwaukee could be a national model for revitalizing civic landscapes —and saving families, says. Last year, LeinbacVs first book was published: Urban Ecology: A Natural Way to Transform Kids, Parks, Cities, and the World. In it, he explains how his ideas came about and how others can benefit from them. "This is more than a book," he writes. "It is an invi- tation to create something like this in your own community." As a follow -up, the Urban Ecology Center has sponsored an institute to teach others how to create similar programs. Last summer in Milwaukee, there were representatives from Mexico, Columbia, and Israel, all of them seeking ideas for their own revitalization projects. ■ —Ruth Eckdish Knack, Enka 1 11 � OST AMERICANS KNOW ABOUT THE history of segregation in the U.S., but a recently published book examines how the three branches of government actually thwarted many efforts to achieve equity. In The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Government Segregated America, (Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017), historian Richard Rothstein explores the complex role played by planning and zoning in shaping segregation in the 20th century. The color of law Throughout the book, Rothstein carefully untangles the various efforts to impose segregation using governmental power. In a chapter on "Racial Zoning," for example, he describes the ways in which prominent early planners used zoning as a tool to create homogeneous districts, defined both by use (e.g., industrial, residential) and housing type and value. Planners, federal government officials, and others argued that it was important for the government to protect the financial value of housing, which was depressed by the presence of African Americans (and in other cases, Jews and recent immigrants). Rothstein builds a persuasive case that the federal government, aided by local officials, created the programs and regulations that kept African Americans in segregated neighborhoods, often in poor quality housing in undesirable locations. He also shows that recent research contradicts the per- ception that racial integration lowers housing values. In the mid 20th century, planners began to critique their own actions and call for more just and equi- table planning. In 1992, planners created the "Ethical Principles of Planning, a guide for commissioners and officials that emphasizes "policies and actions that best serve the entire community" and pro- motes "the highest standards of fairness and honesty among all participants.' Of course, not all discrimination has been aimed at African Americans. The late Stuart Meck, PA> cP, demonstrated in "Zoning and Anti - Semitism in the 1920s: The Case of `Cleveland Jewish Orphan Home v. Village of University Heights' and Its Aftermath' (Journal of Planning History, May 2005) that the desire to keep communities homogeneous meant that multiple groups have been targeted for exclusion. However, race has provided the excuse for the most far - reaching discrimi- nation with long -term consequences. Rothsteins book is divided into chapters on public housing, zoning, home ownership, private agreements and government enforcement, white flight, and the IRS, among others. These tools together effectively blocked African Americans from having the same choices as white Americans. Among the serious conse- quences of these housing poli- cies and laws was the inability of African Americans to develop wealth (or at least a nest egg) from home owner- ship. The federal government denied African Americans access to the mortgages that helped white urban dwellers buy single - family houses in the suburbs starting as early as the 1920s, and escalating significantly after World War II. Prospective African American home owners were left with the option of contract sales, which denied equity in the property until the entire debt was paid off. Missing even one payment could lead to eviction and the loss of the entire investment. The book illuminates the complex interplay of congressional acts, federal policies and programs, local regulations and legal tools, and the private housing market and individual choices. Adding to this complexity are the courts, which interpret the Constitution in light of these actions. It is the challenging role of planners and local planning com- missioners to care for the well-being of their community while considering the demands of the Constitution, federal laws and rulings, and ethical principles that promote fairness. The Color of Law offers a refresher course on how we have created our cities, often at the expense of some citizens. It is also remarkably insightful about how the various branches of government interact and respond to societal expectations. Coming to terms with history June Manning Thomas, PA>cP, currently a professor at the University of Michigan, wrote a paper called "Race, Racism, and Race Relations: Linkages with Urban and Regional Planning Literature" in 1997 at the behest of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning and the White House. Since then, literature on this topic has greatly expanded. Joseph Heathcott's blog essay on Aggregate.org (March 2015), titled "Race, Planning, and the American City; provides an overview. While The Color of Law thoroughly details the history of federal actions that have affected all U.S. cities, Heathcott notes that "racism hides behind many masks, and insinuates itself into the city building process through a wide variety of policies, laws, customs, habits, and beliefs." Much of this history has been brought to light through studies of urban growth in major American cities and through studies of African American communities in such cities as Detroit, Cleveland, Mil- waukee, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Philadel- phia, and Birmingham. The relationships between race, real estate, and develop- ment have also been thoroughly examined in Baltimore, Kansas City, Durham, and other cities. ■ — Carolyn Torma Torma is a former director of education for the American Planning Association. American Planning Association 37