Loading...
PC-07-03-12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick and Hasek; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioners Hutchins and Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Davis stated she would like to continue Item 3 Animal Control Ordinance (Dogs/Cats) to a future meeting. She noted that she thought the way the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department wrote the draft Uniform Animal Control Ordinance (draft Ordinance) is brutal. Director Nielsen stated he was going to suggest that anyway. He wanted time to compare the draft Ordinance for the SLMPD member cities to the City’s Animal Control Ordinance. Davis moved, Hasek seconded, continuing the discussion about the draft Uniform Animal Control Ordinance (draft Ordinance) to a future meeting pending further information. Motion passed 5/0. Davis moved, Garelick seconded, approving the agenda for July 3, 2012, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  June 5, 2012 Davis moved, Hasek seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 5, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Hasek stated he noticed the applicants for Item 2 on the agenda have young children with them. He suggested discussing Item 2 before Item 1 on the agenda. Director Nielsen noted that discussion of Item 2 is posted to start no earlier than 7:10 P.M. and it can’t start before that time. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SIGN Applicants: Our Savior’s Lutheran Church Location: 23290 State Highway 7 Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a July 23, 2012, Regular City CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 2 of 13 Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He noted Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 23290 State Highway 7, has requested a conditional use permit for an electronic display. Director Nielsen noted this is the first conditional use permit to be received since the City’s new dynamic sign ordinance went into effect. Nielsen explained that Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 23290 State Highway 7, proposes to replace their existing freestanding sign at the front of their property with a dynamic display sign in the same location. The proposed sign requires a conditional use permit (C.U.P.), pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.e. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. The proposed sign measures approximately 2.67 feet by 6.25 feet and contains 16.7 square feet of area. A sign is allowed to be up to 20 square feet. The sign will be located on the north side of the service drive in front of the Church. The illustration of the sign included in the meeting packet shows an angled, two-face sign. The applicants are proposing a back to back, double- faced instead. Doing so allows them to comply with the maximum sign area requirement whereby only one side of the sign is counted. Nielsen then explained the applicant has submitted a certification letter, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet, confirming that the various brightness levels and software controls required by the new ordinance are being complied with. The meeting packet also contains a copy of a photometric plan illustrating various light levels on the property. As indicated, the levels are well below the 0.4 foot-candle maximum provided by the City Code. Nielsen explained that the applicant’s plans are consistent with the City Code. The only item Staff could find that was not addressed was the duration of the message. In residential zoning districts, the message must remain static for at least 90 minutes at a time. Since the sign is within 500 feet of single-family residential dwellings, the message must be programmed to freeze between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis, Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a C.U.P. subject to the time constraints just discussed. Once the sign is installed, Staff will inspect for compliance. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public hearing at 7:12 P.M. Commissioner Davis stated she has no issue with the request. She expressed concern on behalf of the residents that live close to the Church. John Zahrte, the pastor at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, stated there are no residents other than those living directly across the street. Those living to the west of the Church are tucked behind trees. Those living behind the building would be shielded from the sign. Director Nielsen noted the City did notify everyone living within 500 feet of the Church’s property. Commissioner Garelick asked if the display would be just text, or if there would there will be pictures as well. Pastor Zahrte responded just text. Director Nielsen noted the City’s Ordinance only allows alpha numeric characters in a residential district. Commissioner Hasek asked who prepared the Site Plan the Planning Commission was provided a copy of. A member of the audience stated he thought the site plan was from when the new addition to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 3 of 13 church was constructed. Director Nielsen explained Staff took the site plan from a previous application submitted by the Church. Hasek asked Director Nielsen how far the sign is setback off of the 35-foot setback line. Nielsen responded it is in back of the required setback, while noting that is not required. Five feet from the front property line is the requirement. Hasek suggested asking future applicants for signs to provide some type of dimension so the Planning Commission knows where the sign would be located. Nielsen noted the applicant does show the 35-foot front setback. Commissioner Davis stated she would also like a dimension of the structure off of the setback line. Hasek stated the applicants have provided the dimensions of the face of the sign. He suggested applicants be asked to provide information about the height of the sign. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 23290 State Highway 7, for a dynamic display sign subject to the message remaining static for at least 90 minutes at a time and freezing the message between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Garelick asked what type of message is permitted on the sign. For example, could someone make a political statement? Pastor Zahrte stated the messages will not be political in nature. The Church does advertise its worship service times, maybe a sermon theme, something regarding the school there or the child care center, special events and so forth. It would be information that is pertinent to the community. Director Nielsen noted the City cannot regulate the content of the message. The applicant noted the sign will be approximately 6.5 feet tall. Chair Geng thanked the applicants for coming this evening. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIX-FOOT HIGH FENCE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK Applicants: Heather and Jeff Johnson Location: 23625 Smithtown Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a July 23, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He stated Heather and Jeff Johnson, 23625, Country Road 19, have requested a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a six-foot high fence to be located in their front yard. He noted the applicants are present this evening. Commissioner Garelick stated on television sometime in the last few days there was a story about a person living in a nearby local city who constructed a windmill without obtaining a permit or approval. He asked if having constructed a fence without obtaining a permit (which is the case here) is in anyway similar to that. Director Nielsen noted the City’s ordinance actually provides for this type of fence in a front yard, but it does require a C.U.P. He explained that Heather and Jeff Johnson, 23625 County Road 19, have requested a conditional use permit to construct a six-foot high, alternating board on board fence across the front of their property. The property is zoned R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential and contains CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 4 of 13 approximately 25,968 square feet of area. County Road 19 is designated in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan as an arterial street which is what allows them to construct the type of fence they did in the location that they did. He noted that this is an after-the-fact application, and that a substantial portion of the fence has already been constructed. Yet, it must be considered as a new application. Nielsen noted the applicants knew what the City’s rules were regarding where it could be located on their property. He explained the City’s Ordinance allows construction of a six-foot high fence by C.U.P. along an arterial street as long as it is located eight feet back from the right-of-way (ROW) line. The eight foot setback is intended to be landscaped to soften the view of the fence from the roadway. The applicants’ fence is located about twenty feet back from the Country Road 19 ROW. It extends across the front of the applicant’s property and cuts back into the site to the proposed gate, allowing room for a car to stop while the gate is being opened. Nielsen explained the Site Plan shows the location of proposed landscaping, which is also illustrated on the applicants’ sketch. The applicants propose planting four oversized spruce trees along the front wall. Climbing hydrangea and clematis will be planted so they grow over the fence and screen it. He displayed a photograph of the fence that is already in place, a sketch of the landscaping and photographs of what the plants look like. Nielsen reviewed how the applicants’ request complies with the criteria: 1. The fence must be located at least eight feet from the property line. The applicants’ fence is set back 20 feet from the front property line, allowing ample room for landscaping. 2. The applicant must submit a landscape plan for the street side of the fence to show how the visual impact of the fence will be lessened. It is not the City’s intent to totally block out the fence. There is a short row of arborvitae located along the easterly fourth of the front of the lot. The applicant proposes to add four, fifteen-foot spruce trees across the easterly portion of the fence, filling in with climbing hydrangea and clematis plants. Landscaping is a key element to this type of C.U.P. It is recommended that the applicant be required to submit a bid from a landscaper, based on the proposed landscaping, for use in determining the amount of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee that the work will be done. The security must be 1.5 times the amount of the bid and should extend through the growing season next year. It is strongly recommended that the landscaping be completed by mid- September of this year. 3. The location of the fence takes into effect traffic visibility. Between the right-of-way for County Road 19 and the fence, there is ample room for cars on the County Road to see cars exiting the site. It is recommended that the westerly-most of the spruce trees be located such that at least half a car length (10 feet) of a car in the driveway will be visible to traffic on Smithtown Road, taking into account the diameter of the tree at maturity. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis, Staff recommends the applicants’ request for a C.U.P. be approved subject to the applicants providing a letter of credit or cash escrow for 1.5 times the amount of the landscape bid and that the landscaping should be done by early fall of 2012. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Johnson asked the Planning Commission to recommend approval of their C.U.P. because of their two young children. He explained that his sense of urgency in putting up the fence was because one of his children was about 1.5 feet away from the roadway and he freaked out. He went to grab one child and the other child ran off. He then explained the setback is more than double the eight feet required. Their intent is to plant about $2,400 in spruce trees. Currently they are considering three fifteen-foot-tall spruce trees and maybe one smaller spruce tree or a different type of tree that won’t grow quite as large. He asked Director Nielsen what his thoughts are about doing that. Nielsen asked Commissioner Hasek to comment on that. Commissioner Hasek stated spruce trees can grow 40 to 50 feet high. Planting them closer than 20 feet to the street there would be a good chance that the tree branches could eventually reach the street. From his perspective they will certainly impact the fence. His opinion is that arborvitae would be better than spruce trees. Hasek stated that in relation to C.U.P.s in general he thought the landscaping plan should be done by someone who really knows and understands plantings. Mr. Johnson noted they did seek expertise in the landscaping field. Mrs. Johnson questioned what the concern is about being do it yourselfers. They do almost all of their own work. Mrs. Johnson asked why the Planning Commission would ask them to spend money to hire a landscaper if their intent is to maintain their landscaping and if they are abiding by the rules. Hasek stated because as part of the C.U.P. process the City asks that someone prepare a landscaping plan. Hasek noted he is only asking for what the City Ordinance asks for. Mr. Johnson asked Commissioner Hasek if he is saying he doesn’t like their landscaping plan. Hasek stated he is not saying that at all. Hasek then stated he is not sure he would be able to maintain the landscaping the applicants are proposing the way the City would like it to be maintained. Mrs. Johnson stated she doesn’t understand what Commissioner Hasek’s concern is. Commissioner Hasek stated there is concern about the size of the trees. And, that concern could have been resolved if someone had looked at the landscaping plan and recommended where spruce trees should be located near a six-foot-high fence while keeping in mind the roadway in front of the property and the need to maintain visibility. Mr. Johnson stated they showed the gentleman they plan to purchase the trees from the landscaping plan and the photographs. The gentleman is in his mid-sixties and has been in the business for a very long time. He told them they should not have a problem with the trees. Mrs. Johnson noted City Ordinance asks for a landscape plan but it doesn’t require that it be prepared by a professional landscaper. Commissioner Hasek stated Section 1201.04 Subd. 3.b(4) in the Ordinance states “Landscape plan, which shall include: (a) Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed; (b) Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings; (c) Location of and material used for all screening devices”. Hasek then stated his question is more directed toward Staff than the applicants. He went on to state that from his perspective the more information the City gets the less likely it will be to impose additional conditions as part of granting the C.U.P. He clarified he does not have a problem with the landscaping plan but he would like to see it cleaned up. Director Nielsen stated that typically Staff has recommended spacing of 20 feet for spruce trees. The trees will fill the space between the fence and the property line. There is additional space beyond that before reaching the roadway. He is not concerned about the trees that would be located to the east. He has some CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 6 of 13 concern about the one that will be located closest to the driveway. That tree could either be eliminated or plant something else that will not grow to the same diameter as a spruce tree. Commissioner Hasek commented that the snowplows throw snow 30 feet off the street. The snow will have salt in it and the salt will kill the trees. He noted that arborvitae would be worse than spruce. He stated he thought that over-story trees should be planted instead of deciduous trees. Director Nielsen stated over-story trees don’t do anything to soften the fence. Mrs. Johnson stated they did do their research about trees because they will be an investment to them. The person who they will buy the trees from told them the trees should be fine because of how far back they will be located. They will also plant some arborvitae in front of the spruce trees that will act somewhat like a shield. Commissioner Hasek recommended the C.U.P. remain in effect for as long as the landscaping is in place, is in good shape and is maintained. He noted he does not think the landscaping is going to survive. Mrs. Johnson stated they are willing to entertain planting another type of tree based on the City’s recommendation. Commissioner Hasek stated he is quite sure that a professional landscaper would have suggested something different and provided the applicants with different answers. He commented that he as a professional landscaper would not put spruce trees in that location. Mrs. Johnson stated there are two other properties along Smithtown Road that have shrub roses and trees on the front of their property. They appear to be surviving well. Chair Geng stated Commissioner Hasek’s perspective about the spruce trees has been made abundantly clear, and he noted the city can’t dictate to the applicant what type of trees to plant. He then stated one of the conditions of the C.U.P. is to maintain the landscaping. Mrs. Johnson stated they will maintain the landscaping. Commissioner Hasek asked how long the fence has been in place. Mr. Johnson responded about four weeks. Hasek stated if there were to a trail segment constructed along County Road 19 in that area he asked where it would be located. Director Nielsen explained there has been some discussion about a potential trail along County Road 19, but there has not been any discussion about what side of the roadway it would be located on. Hasek asked if the roadway would have to be made wider to accommodate a trail on the roadway surface. Nielsen stated the trail would be built within the ROW and nothing the applicants are proposing is within the ROW. Even if the trees grow to 20 feet in diameter they will not go into the ROW. Hasek asked Nielsen if everything else is up to snuff being the applicants have lived there for three years. Nielsen stated he is not aware of there being any issues. Mrs. Johnson thanked the Planning Commission for its time. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. John Leebens, 23825 Smithtown Road (Co. Rd. 19), stated he has lived in his house for eighteen years and he thought the Johnsons were being very conservative. If it were him he would build a higher wall and plant much more vegetation. He then stated 10,000 – 12,000 cars a day travel that segment of County Road 19 (Smithtown Road). And, the eight months of motorcycle noise is abominable. He commented CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 7 of 13 that he has complained to the police about the noise and was told that the police do not have a device to test the noise decibels; the device costs $3,000. He noted that he can’t have enough green to block out the noise. He commented he considers County Road 19 a commercial street similar to Highway 7. He stated he thought the residents who live along Smithtown Road should be allowed to comply with different Code regulations than properties located two blocks off of County Road 19. He then stated he thought much more greenery would help condense the motorcycle noise. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the C.U.P. Kay Hoffman 5620 Wood Duck Circle, stated she has no objection to what the Johnson’s are proposing. She stated she and her sister, who lives next door to her, think the fence is great. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. Hasek moved, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for Heather and Jeff Johnson, 23625 County Road 19, subject to the applicant providing a letter of credit or cash escrow for 1.5 times the amount of the landscape bid, and having the resolution approving the conditional use permit state that the conditional use permit is valid as long as the proposed/required landscaping is maintained and replaced if it dies or is substantially close to dying. Chair Geng stated in the analysis of the case Staff recommended the westerly-most spruce tree be located such that at least one half a car length (10 feet) of a car in the driveway will be visible to traffic on County Road 19, taking into account the diameter of the tree at maturity. He asked what to do with that recommendation. Director Nielsen stated that is a matter of making sure that tree is located far enough east and back, even it if becomes almost edge like. Geng asked if it would be prudent to require the applicants to present a new landscaping plan. Nielsen stated he thought Staff could handle it in the field. Geng stated then the actual placement of the trees would be subject to Staff approval. Nielsen agreed. Without objection from the maker, the motion was amended to include the placement of the trees would be subject to City Staff approval. Geng seconded. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:49 P.M. Commissioner Hasek recommended the Planning Commissioners at least drive by sites prior to the meeting. And, he thought the Planning Commission needs to start tightening down on C.U.P.s. Director Nielsen stated the applicants knew they needed a C.U.P. but they felt they could not wait to go through the process. They applied for the C.U.P. when Staff noticed they had constructed a fence without applying for the C.U.P. Commissioner Davis commented that the applicants knew they bought property located along a busy street even though they had young children. Commissioner Hasek stated it is up to Staff and the Planning Commission to decide what additional conditions should be imposed when approving a C.U.P. He asked how to do that without having really good information. He then stated when people tell him that they are do-it-yourselfers that raises a red flag for him. He noted that he agrees they need a fence because of their children. Commissioner Davis stated the applicants built the type of fence the City likes. Director Nielsen stated that is the favored type mainly because it complies with Code and it does the job of a solid fence. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 8 of 13 Director Nielsen stated he doesn’t want the trees along the roadway to be surrounded by burlap as is allowed in a neighboring city. There was ensuing discussion about tree types that may withstand the salt. Commissioner Davis stated some cities provide a list of trees and plants that grow well in this climate and survive the elements well. But, the list is not restrictive. Director Nielsen noted the list of acceptable plant materials is the same as what is identified in the City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. It identifies a large variety, but it does not speak to salt tolerance. He stated Staff will do research on trees that are salt tolerant. Commissioner Davis stated the gentlemen that spoke during the Public Testimony period noted the police don’t enforce the noise ordinance. It is an example of another thing they can’t or won’t do. Director Nielsen noted that is not specific to the police department. It is like that everywhere. It’s not enforced. The Highway Patrol doesn’t deal with it either. Nielsen explained it is difficult to get a read on a moving vehicle. Davis questioned how long it would take the police to show up if there was a crime. She stated when you call they take a message. She noted that is a concern to her. She stated the residents in Shorewood pay a lot of money for service they are not getting. She then stated there is speeding, guns are being fired, there are prowlers, and there are noise problems. That is an issue to her. She went on to state she had to take a picture of the car that the prowlers on her property came in to give to the police. She explained they turned their dogs on the prowlers because the police did not come. When they called her back the police asked her what they did and she explained they turned the dogs loose and took a picture of the car. The police encouraged her not to do that and recommended she call them. She told them she had. Director Nielsen stated the police will tell you they are understaffed. Commissioner Davis commented someone is going to get killed. 3. ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE (DOGS/CATS) This item was continued to a future meeting pending additional information. 4. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION  General Provisions Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the Zoning Code General Provisions Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.g – 2.u. He noted he did not think there were many issues. The landscaping standards were reviewed a couple of years ago and therefore they are pretty up to date. He stated Commissioner Hasek’s earlier comments about professional landscaping plans may be worth talking about. He noted the City does have landscape requirements for income producing properties. The City hasn’t required that for single family homes. Nielsen then stated the standard relative to noise is probably worth talking about. He explained Subd. 2.m states “Noise. The emission of noise by any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minn. Rules Chapter 7030, as amended.” The PCA standard is intended for operations that are very noisy for some length of time; such as business a that generates noise. The City has a noise meter that the Planning Department will use for those types of things. The CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 9 of 13 City does not have a noise ordinance aside from that standard. The City does occasionally receive complaints about noise. When someone applies for a construction permit they are informed that construction hours are 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. Monday – Friday, 8:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. on Saturday, and construction is not allowed on Sunday. That is generally intended for builders. It does not address what he terms “the weekend warrior”. The only time they can do something such as build a deck is Saturday and Sunday. The City will periodically receive a complaint about a neighbor starting up their chainsaw at 6:00 A.M. The City has made a conscious choice not to address things like that. Commissioner Davis stated she recollected a time when road crews were running their equipment until 9:00 P.M. or even 10:00 P.M. Director Nielsen stated they should not be. Commissioner Hasek questioned why people have to complain in order to get people to comply with the Ordinance. Commissioner Davis commented that residential turbines are coming. They are big and they make noise. She suggested regulations for them should be included in the Zoning Code. Chair Geng stated there is a particular property owner in the City of Orono who has the controversial residential turbine and that he has a long history of being controversial. Director Nielsen noted doing something without a permit is a different discussion. He explained that during the discussion of Item 2 there was no discussion about what the penalty should be for constructing the fence before obtaining a permit. From his perspective there are two choices. The policy has historically been that the applicant pays a double permit fee amount for an after-the-fact permit. The conditional use permit (C.U.P.) fee is $200. A more punishing way to approach it is to also give them an administrative penalty for a zoning violation and that is $300. Commissioner Davis stated she hated to penalize the Johnsons (the applicants for the C.U.P. in Item 2.A) because they clearly had their hands full with the two little girls. What she questions is that the Johnsons knew that before they decided to construct their six-foot-high fence without a C.U.P. Director Nielsen stated he doesn’t have much sympathy when someone says they did not know they needed to have a permit when the Planning Department has told people the rules before they did anything. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought it is important for Council to know the Johnsons had been told they needed to apply for a C.U.P. but did not do so before constructing their fence. Director Nielsen stated the concept of asking for forgiveness rather than permission should not be the rule. He then stated the idea of the penalty will be discussed when Council considers the Johnsons after- the-fact C.U.P. He noted he thought at a minimum the permit fee should be doubled. Director Nielsen brought the discussion back to the topic at hand. Nielsen asked the Planning Commission if it wants to pursue noise further than what the standard is in the General Provisions. Chair Geng asked what the volume of noise complaints is. Does the City receive a lot of complaints? Director Nielsen responded maybe 2 – 3 a year at maximum. But when the City does receive them the complainant is pretty upset. Nielsen noted the City’s Nuisance Ordinance is a fallback but that is a hard CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 10 of 13 Ordinance to enforce. Geng asked if the Minnesota PCA standards are sufficient. Do they give the City authority? Nielsen stated they do not. Director Nielsen explained that for example the City is dealing with a situation where a property owner is using his chainsaw early in the day and is riding his 4 wheeler at all hours of the day to be somewhat spiteful to people for making complaints against him. He noted the police could not even hope to catch that person under the PCA standard. He also noted that he was not confident a noise ordinance would address some of what that individual is doing. It may address his operating his chainsaw at 6:00 A.M. or someone operating his bobcat early in the morning. The PCA standard is more for sustained noise where the sound can be monitored with a noise meter for a period of time. At lot of the noise levels the City receives complaints about cannot be monitored. He commented that no one should have to ask someone not to operate their chainsaw at 6:00 A.M. Commissioner Davis stated you can’t regulate common sense. Director Nielsen stated most of these types of ordinances have to do with a very small handful of people who don’t have common sense or practice common courtesy. Nielsen then stated there is a provision in the GreenStep Cities Program that talks about dark sky requirements. He thought that the City has essentially been doing that with the downcast lighting it recommends in most cases. He noted he will research that some more. Chair Geng clarified that he has no problem with homeowners planting their own plantings. He concurs with requiring them to submit a proper plan. Director Nielsen stated for income producing properties he has no problem requiring them to have a registered landscape architect prepare the landscape plan. For residential properties having a landscape designer do the plan is to him more than sufficient. Chair Geng stated he would like to be provided with some information about what other cities have done regarding noise ordinances. Noise is a nuisance and nuisance ordinances are generally hard to enforce. He then stated there maybe benefit to have one specifically targeting noise. Commissioner Davis stated she would like that information also. Commissioner Davis stated that for many years in the neighborhood near where she lives a resident used to work on motorcycles and all summer long there was a constant noise from motorcycle engines. Director Nielsen asked if there is anything else in this part of the General Provisions that warrants discussion. Commissioner Davis asked how things are going with the trash ordinance. Director Nielsen explained both the commercial and residential sides went quite well. Davis then asked how the chicken ordinance has been received. Nielsen stated two permits have been issued for chickens. Nielsen commented he thought raising chickens on small residential property is going to be a fad. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 11 of 13 6. OLD BUSINESS Chair Geng asked if there is any old business for discussion this evening. In response to a question from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen stated the government training session will be held this fall, likely in September, and it will be done jointly with the City of Deephaven. Davis suggested picking a date soon. Nielsen stated Deephaven is heading it up and that he assumes it will be held at the Southshore Community Center. All of the South Lake area communities can participate. Commissioner Hasek stated he has not been able to find any information about chemically treating a tree to put it into a state of dormancy to reduce stress on the tree during construction. He suggested monitoring that tree on private property. He clarified that he is not saying it won’t work but he can’t find much information saying it does work. Director Nielsen commented that the applicants for that conditional use permit for accessory space over 1,200 square feet have not pulled their permit yet. Commissioner Hasek then stated during the June 5, 2012, meeting Director Nielsen noted that there is an owner of a property that fronts Lake Minnetonka who is very upset because a neighbor planted arborvitae along the property line all the way down to the beach. The person was complaining because it was blocking their view. He questioned if the garage for which the C.U.P. was requested isn’t similar because the neighboring property owner did not want the new garage located in a different spot because it would block his view. Director Nielsen clarified they are not related and explained in the case of the garage the proposed location was something the two property owners had agreed upon. It was the Planning Commission who suggested moving the new garage to a different location. The adjacent property owner preferred it stay in the original proposed location. Commissioner Hasek stated there has been discussion at several levels that one of the reasons that Lymes disease is on the increase in Wisconsin is coyotes eat foxes and foxes eat the small rodents that carry the ticks that infect both deer and humans. Director Nielsen stated he heard that Wisconsin has an effort in place to try and go after coyotes. Commissioner Davis stated she has seen coyotes many times in Freeman Park. 7. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Davis asked if there will be a deer management program this year. Director Nielsen stated he is encouraged that there will be. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there will be a public hearing on an Ordinance amendment on accessory apartments on the August 7, 2012, Planning Commission meeting agenda. There will be a review of the comments received from the public about the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. The third draft of the Report is on the City’s website. There will be a public hearing on a plat approved about four years ago called Wildwood. There will be continued discussion about noise ordinances and the Uniform Animal Control Ordinance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 12 of 13 Chair Geng stated he assumed the other three SLMPD member cities are considering the draft of the Uniform Animal Control Ordinance prepared by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD). He asked how it is going to move forward procedurally. Director Nielsen stated he knows that there has been resistance in the past to a common ordinance. Each City has wanted to have its own ordinance. That is why he plans to prepare a comparison of that draft Ordinance to the City’s Animal Control Ordinance. There is one aspect that needs fairly urgent attention and it could be handled specifically in the City’s Ordinance. It is regarding dangerous and potentially dangerous dog cases. There was a recent incident related to that. There was ensuing discussion about the recent dangerous dog issue in the City. Chair Geng stated he would hate to have the Planning Commission spend a great deal of time on the draft ordinance unless he knew what the procedural process is going forward. He asked if the SLMPD was expecting comments on it, or is the SLMPD Coordinating Committee going to try to make revisions to it. Director Nielsen stated it is the SLMPD’s desire to have a common ordinance to enforce in the four member cities. Chair Geng asked what the SLMPD Coordinating Committee’s desire is. Commissioner Davis asked who is on the Coordinating Committee. Director Nielsen stated he thought the member City Mayors are the members of the Committee. Chair Geng stated it would helpful if the Mayor would provide clarification on that. Director Nielsen stated he thought there is merit to having one common animal control ordinance for the SLMPD member cities to enforce which is the intent of a Uniform Animal Control Ordinance. He commented he thought it appropriate for the four cities to have the same rules on barking dogs. But, he thought the number of dogs a person should have should be up to each member city. Chair Geng suggested concentrating on the dangerous and potentially dangerous dog aspect in the next meeting. Director Nielsen stated it is his understanding that the SLMPD used the City of Greenwood’s Ordinance as a starting point because Greenwood spent a great deal of time developing its ordinance in the last couple of years. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Hasek gave a brief report on the June 11, 2012, City Council and Planning Commission Joint meeting and the June 11, 2012, regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). Director Nielsen reported on the June 25, 2012, City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Davis commented on the organics pilot recycling program which she had the opportunity to participate in but chose not to. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 13 of 13 • SLUC Director Nielsen stated the last Sensible Land Use Coalition meeting was more of a social gathering • Other Chair Geng asked if the Planning Commission should keep its copy of the draft Uniform Animal Control Ordinance. Director Nielsen encouraged them to do so. 10. ADJOURNMENT Hasek moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 3, 2012, at 8:46 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder