Loading...
04 06 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2021 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Gault, Huskins, and Riedel (arrived at 7:18 p.m.); Planning Director Darling; Planning Technician Notermann and, Council Liaison Callies Absent: None 1. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER – KEN HUSKINS 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Eggenberger moved, Gault seconded, approving the agenda for April 6, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 2, 2021 Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Eggenberger, Maddy; Abstain – Gault and Huskins. Motion passed 2/0/2. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 5. 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. PUBLIC HEARING – DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION Applicant: Cities of Shorewood and Excelsior Location: 450 West Lake Street Planning Director Darling stated that this application is a joint request from the City of Shorewood and the City of Excelsior to detach .1 acre from the City and allow it to be annexed into the City of Excelsior. The parcel is the west half of 450 West Lake Street and explained that the home straddles the boundary line between the two cities. She gave an overview of the surrounding properties and explained that this boundary adjustment is to correct the issue of the building being built over the property/boundary line. She stated that this adjustment would allow the property to CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 2 of 9 become one property and only be within one of the cities. Because the property straddles the two cities, the property owner is responsible for knowing the codes for both cities and noted that this is a very uncommon situation. She gave an overview of the options for resolving this issue and noted that staff is recommending that the smaller parcel be annexed into Excelsior. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if there would be any negative impact to the City if this parcel is annexed into Excelsior, besides losing the small amount of tax dollars the City receives. Planning Director Darling stated that she does not know of any negative impacts. Commissioner Huskins noted that this is a joint application and asked if the Excelsior Planning Commission had made any recommendation. Planning Director Darling stated that she has spoken with her counterpart at the City of Excelsior but they have not conducted any studies other than both cities are aware of the problems. She stated that they will be bring the same type of request to their Planning Commission and Council at upcoming meetings. Commissioner Huskins confirmed with Planning Director Darling that he was understanding correctly that Shorewood was taking the first look at this issue and then Excelsior would consider it. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Petra Cripe, 450 West Lake Street, stated that she has lived here for twenty years and this property has been subdivided between two cities since before 1940 and noted that there has not been an issue with it during that entire time. She stated that they were a little concerned when they received notice of tonight’s meeting and asked who actually initiated this appeal. She explained that she would like to know their reason and noted that she thinks she deserved to know that information since she is the resident on the property being discussed. She stated that they did not ask for this action and are concerned about their best interests not being looked after. She stated that both of their neighbors who have caused them extreme stress over the last year appear to be present at the meeting. She stated that she is worried about why the City wants to push this through. She shared that there was a water break on their lake side some years ago because all of the lines were tied together and it turned out to be the neighbors piece of the T that had broken. In order to get a small excavator into the backyard, part of their back deck needed to be removed. She asked Excelsior if they could have an extra three feet in order to build a porch in that location and they said no because it was against their zoning and ordinances. They then presented the request to Shorewood and because that portion of the property was within the City boundary, they said they could build a porch. She stated that she has concerns that if they were to be annexed into Excelsior and something were to damage her porch, that they may not allow her to repair it. She stated that if this goes forward, she wants to be assured that they would be grandfathered in on the porch and numerous other things. She stated that another example is that her sons want to raise chickens which is allowed in Shorewood with a permit, but is not in Excelsior. She stated that she wants to make sure they, as the homeowner, are protected because in the past year, they have not been protected and have seen much hardship because of what the cities have done along with what their neighbors have done to them. She stated that they are just a family, raising their kids, minding their own business, and they need to be protected. She stated that they do not want to be railroaded by the cities like they have been over the last year. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 3 of 9 Chair Maddy asked Planning Director Darling what led to this application. Planning Director Darling explained that this was a staff-initiated recommendation and did not come from any member of the public. She stated that it came from the difficulty of trying to apply two codes to the same property. Chair Maddy stated that he agrees with what the City is trying to do to simplify things so there is only one set of rules. He asked Ms. Cripe for her opinion on which city she would like to reside in. Ms. Cripe stated that she likes it the way it is and reiterated that it has never been a problem for them other than when they first moved in when they were escrowing their taxes to the bank. She stated that they like being part of both cities and like them both the same. She stated that they have no plans to tear down their house and rebuild. She stated that she wonders if their neighbors have been complaining to Planning Director Darling about ordinance violations. She noted that in the 20 years they have lived here, nobody has ever complained about them and noted that they live on a dead-end street. She explained that they used to park their boat on their driveway, but suddenly their neighbors had issues with what she considers to be ridiculous things like ensuring the boat is 10 feet from the street and that there is only one kayak on the dock. She stated that she is convinced that this is why this action has been initiated. She asked which staff member had initiated this action. She stated that she thinks she should be privy to that information since this is her property. Commissioner Riedel stated that he is not sure that point is relevant because complaints are treated anonymously and is the policy of the City not to reveal this information. Ms. Cripe stated that she is not looking for the person who initiated the complaints, because she already knows who they are, but would like to know who initiated the annexation appeal. Planning Director Darling reiterated that this issue came to the Planning Commission because of the complexity of applying two different cities codes to the same property. Chair Maddy stated that he agrees with that and remembers that there was a storage issue on this property which was an awkward conversation because depending on which side of the property they were considering, there were two sets of rules. He reiterated that it makes sense from a distance, but would like to make sure the homeowner is part of the conversation. Gabriel Jabbour, stated that he owns the property known as ‘the dredging company” which was the former Shorewood Yacht Club. He stated that he has not registered one single complaint with the City but admitted that it has been extremely frustrating for everyone to figure out what set of rules they should live by. He stated that he thinks this is a great housekeeping issue and will just clean things up. He stated that he is assuming the Cripes, by law, would be considered residents of Excelsior since that is where they vote. He stated that it has been a difficult summer for everyone because nobody seemed to be happy about anything. He stated that he thinks this action is the right thing to do and is a bit past due. He reiterated that he did not initiate or file any complaint, but did express frustration in response to having to remove the gate and the fence. Kurt Wehrmann, 444 West Lake Street, Excelsior, explained that he lives next door to Ms. Cripe. He stated that he thinks it is a good idea to eliminate code violations and annex the property to one city or the other. He stated that he agrees that this would reduce confusion between the two cities and also save time for the cities in working on code enforcement. He stated that they are not out to get anybody but just want to do their best to keep their property looking good and keep CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 4 of 9 their property values up by eliminating eye sores on the south side of the street on City property. He stated that the boat in the driveway was an issue because they have small school bus that needs to turn around on this dead-end road. He stated that he does not wish ill will on anyone and hopes that the property is annexed one way or the other. Ms. Cripe asked why both of her neighbors just spoke in support of annexing her property when they claim that they have no ill will towards her or any type of agenda. She stated that it seems quite ironic that these two people are the only other people speaking at tonight’s public hearing, besides herself. She explained that the issue with the bus and the boat was all caused by Mr. Jabbour moving the fence up by 20-25 feet which now makes it difficult for the short bus, FedEx, UPS, or any delivery vehicle to find a way to back up to do the turn around which means they have been turning around in Mr. Wehrmann’s driveway which he has an issue with. She stated that she does not mind trucks turning around in her driveway. She stated that both Mr. Jabbour and Mr. Wehrmann showed animosity towards her family last summer and have an interest in this meeting. There being no additional public input, Chair Maddy closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Chair Maddy reminded everyone that the Planning Commission is just a recommending body, and noted that his understanding is that even if the City Council in Shorewood voted to approve this, nothing would happen without the City Council in Excelsior doing the same thing. Planning Director Darling stated that this was correct. Commissioner Gault stated that when he saw this on the agenda, he assumed the property owner was a participant in the request and was supportive of this action. He stated that it is a major concern for him because Ms. Cripe is opposed to this action. He stated that he does not feel the City should be doing anything with the property without the property owner’s approval. Commissioner Riedel stated that the building code does not permit a structure to straddle two properties which means this is a building code violation. He stated that he understands that the Commission is discussing a zoning issue and in principle for that type of issue an applicant can, in principle, apply for a variance. He stated that he is struggling to find what part of City law applies to a building code violation that would be permitted to stand and asked if this was just a situation where the Council just has complete discretion. Planning Director Darling stated that the Council has complete discretion within their boundary lines, but the building code itself is a State rule. She explained that the building code does not permit structures or buildings to cross property lines. One way to correct the situation is to move the jurisdictional boundary which is sometimes not possible and explained some of the other ways to deal with the issue. Commissioner Gault asked if this meant that the portion on the City side would need to comply with our ordinances and setbacks and vice versa for the Excelsior side. Planning Director Darling stated that this would be correct but there can be variances granted. She noted that there was a variance granted by Shorewood at one point to allow for an expansion of the garage. Chair Maddy noted that Ms. Cripe stated that the garage variance was granted in 1986. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 5 of 9 Commissioner Gault asked what would happen if the garage was destroyed and the property owner wanted to rebuild it. He asked if it would be grandfathered in. Planning Director Darling stated that they would have six months to pull a permit and rebuild. Chair Maddy asked if she was referring to a Shorewood permit or an Excelsior permit. Planning Director Darling stated that it would have to be both. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the answer Planning Director Darling just gave shows how absurd this situation is and this is something that should have been resolved many years ago. He stated that it makes no sense to have this resident straddle two jurisdictions. He stated that the only advantage he can see for the homeowner is the ability to play two cities off of each other. He stated that it makes the most sense to him that this property would go to Excelsior because that is where the utilities and the residence is located. He stated that, to him, this is a slam dunk, regardless of who brought the issue forward. He reiterated that it makes sense for this property to be under one jurisdiction. Eggenberger moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to detach a parcel from the City of Shorewood and allow annexation of the parcel into the City of Excelsior for property located at 450 West Lake Street PID # 34- 117-23-21-0011. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Eggenberger, Riedel, Huskins, and Maddy. Nay – Gault. Motion passed 4/1. Commissioner Gault explained that he had voted against this motion because the City would be taking this action over the objection of the property owner. Planning Director Darling stated that this should go to the City Council on April 26, 2021. She explained that the Excelsior Planning Commission will also be meeting on April 26, 2021 and their recommendation will be sent to their City Council at their first meeting in May. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Sign Ordinance Update – Discussion on Political Signs Planning Director Darling explained that this item is also a staff-initiated item regarding text amendments for political signage. She stated that one of the priorities that the Council set for themselves and the Planning Commission this year was to review and consider amendments of the political sign regulations and noted that of concern specifically were the number and proximity of campaign signs to the streets. She stated that it is a complicated issue and there are a number of State statutes that give the City some requirements for what is allowed. She read aloud the State statute and the City’s sign regulation language. She stated that the language is similar but has two separate standards that apply to all elections which causes confusion about when the City can apply their standards and when they cannot. Staff is proposing that the code be changed to be more clear when the non-commercial signs can be put up before all elections. She reviewed the recommendations from staff that they would like the Planning Commission to consider. Commissioner Eggenberger asked about regulation of non-commercial signage and whether the City can regulate where they are placed. Planning Director Darling stated that the City can impose location requirements. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 6 of 9 Councilmember Callies stated that she thinks it is a good idea to have the language be consistent with the State law but thinks that 15 feet from the edge of the pavement is not practical for most areas of the City and would basically prohibit any campaign signs being visible. Commissioner Huskins stated that he would agree that a 15-foot setback seems a bit excessive, but his concern was that it may have the unintended consequence of having people place larger signs in order for them to be visible. He stated that he would prefer smaller signs in the neighborhoods. He asked if a campaign would be allowed to have signage for an event if they got a permit to hold a rally on public lands. Planning Director Darling stated that she would have to review that information and noted that there are very few signs that organizations can put up during events. Commissioner Huskins stated that the proposed language states that the City would have the right to remove the signs that are in violation. Planning Director Darling clarified that this is would either be in the right-of-way or on public land. She stated that if there were violations on private property, the City would notify the property owner. Commissioner Gault commented that he was not sure if residents understood the regulations surrounding nameplate signs and substitution of non-commercial signs. Planning Director Darling stated that nameplate signs seem to be going away and very few homeowners even have them anymore. Commissioner Riedel asked if Commissioner Gault was asking if someone, under this ordinance, would be permitted to put up a non-conforming sign simply because it contains non-commercial speech. He stated that he does not think that is the case and people cannot put up a fully non- conforming sign. Commissioner Gault stated that he agreed, but feels this language says they can substitute their nameplate sign with a non-commercial speech sign but cannot have both. st Commissioner Riedel stated that he would agree and feels that this is a 1 Amendment issue that if you are allowed to write something, then you are allowed to write anything. Chair Maddy stated he has the same concern because you can have a sign that says, “Vote for Joey”, but cannot have a sign that says, “Eat at Joey Nova’s”. He stated that he would like to stay as far away from this as possible. Commissioner Riedel stated that he would not want to go further than the City has to with this st issue and would like to do the minimum to avoid 1 Amendment issues. Chair Maddy stated that State law dictates what the City has to do and asked why the City would not just match their language and not touch any restrictions. He stated that he did not think the City has had a problem with excessive signage. Planning Director Darling stated that the City can match the State law exactly, except State law does not apply to things like school board elections or municipal elections that would happen in non-State general election year. She stated that she thinks that there should be rules for those instances as well. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 7 of 9 Chair Maddy suggested having the school board and other elections match the framework of the State election language and just leave it at that. Planning Director Darling stated that would be fine. Commissioner Gault suggested that it just refer to ‘public elections’. Planning Director Darling clarified that there have been complaints about the number of signs and how close they were which is why the Planning Commission was directed to take a look at this issue. Commissioner Gault stated that he would go to the free speech issue that if he can say one thing, he should be able to say it 100 times or be able to say 100 different things. Commissioner Huskins stated that the State language does not appear to say anything about setbacks. He stated that if the City simply takes the State’s language, he does not think that would be sufficient. Chair Maddy asked if the setback issue was because of traffic and visibility concerns. Planning Director Darling stated that there could be visibility issues which is why she thinks there has been a setback included. She stated that she thinks it was that there were so many, so close to the street, that there was a concern that it would be a distraction. Commissioner Riedel stated that he thinks a setback is helpful and becomes an issue when there are complaints if there is a specific hard number to point to, then it becomes less of a subjective issue. Just stating that signage is not allowed to interfere with visibility opens it up for discussion and interpretation. He stated that he thinks a 15-foot setback is excessive and would suggest something like 5-10 feet. Chair Maddy stated that he does not want to dictate how many feet back a sign can be. He stated that it is not blocking the view of traffic, he would prefer the City just stay out of it. Commissioner Gault stated that it has to be on private property so whatever number that would be forces there to be a setback. He stated that then this raises the question of whether the City allows it at the property line. Planning Director Darling asked what would be done when the property line is in the middle of the street. Commissioner Gault stated that some common sense needs to be used and people cannot put any sign where it will obstruct traffic either for pedestrians or vehicles. He stated that the speech he wants to promote on his private property is whatever he wants it to be and the City has no constitutional ability to stop that unless he would advocate for violence or something. He stated that he does not have a concern with the number of signs, but does have a concern with someone putting up a 10 x 12 sign at an intersection where it will obstruct visibility. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the trouble with that, without using a setback, is people just saying, ‘oh, well that doesn’t obstruct traffic’ and it is just an opposing discussion without a tangible solution. He stated that if there is a setback then it is clear when things need to be moved and when they do not. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Riedel stated that the more he thinks about this, the more he agrees with Chair Maddy. A setback onto private property could actually be challenged. He stated that a public right-of-way is one thing, but an individuals property is their property and a setback in this situation would be somewhat arbitrary. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that all of the City codes could be considered somewhat arbitrary and listed a few examples. Chair Maddy stated that to paraphrase, it appears that what the Commission wants to do is not push any values and let people speak. He stated that the setback issue is interesting because there are good arguments on both sides. Commissioner Huskins stated that he would agree with Commissioner Gault and thinks that a setback will help clarify and reduce some of the subjectivity that would otherwise occur. He stated that he believes a ten-foot setback is reasonable. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would agree with Commissioner Huskins. Planning Director Darling asked if they meant ten feet from the edge of the road or ten feet from the front property line. There was a consensus that the measurement would be from the edge of the road. There was consensus to follow the State guidelines for all public elections for signs to be posted 46 days before the election. Commissioner Huskins stated that he prefers the terminology ‘non-commercial speech’ versus ‘campaign signs’. Commissioner Riedel asked what type of sign is permitted year round with or without a permit. Planning Director Darling stated that most small signs, such as nameplates and the small signs that stick in the ground do not require a permit. Nameplate signs are allowed in any residential district, so there can also be a non-commercial speech sign of the same size, subject to the same setback requirements at any time in the year. She clarified that people get to have one sign and can choose to use it for their name or some other non-commercial speech message. She thanked the Commission for their input and stated that she will bring this back to the Commission at a future date. 7. OTHER BUSINESS: Planning Director Darling asked for volunteers to act as the Commission Liaison in the upcoming months. April – Chair Maddy May – Commissioner Gault June – Commissioner Eggenberger July – Commissioner Huskins August – Commissioner Riedel 8. REPORTS CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 9 of 9 • Council Meeting Report Council Liaison Callies reported on matters considered and actions taken during the most recent Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes). • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated there will be a variance for a screened porch, site plan review for a rehab of the former Park Nicollet clinic into a school, and a CUP, variance, and site plan review for the Wash and Roll at the next Planning Commission meeting. 9. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Gault seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 6, 2021, at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.