Loading...
07 06 2021 Planning Commission Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 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, Huskins, and Gault; Planning Director Darling; Planning Technician Notermann; and, Council Liaison Callies Absent: Commissioner Riedel 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Huskins moved, Eggenberger seconded, approving the agenda for June 1, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye – all Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  May 4, 2021 Huskins moved, Eggenberger seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote – ayes all. Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE 4. 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 – CUP for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards and variances to impervious surface coverage and building height Applicant: Tod and Bonnie Carpenter Location: 26050 Birch Bluff Road Planning Director Darling explained that the applicant would like to remove the existing home and construct a new home at 26050 Birch Bluff Road and are requesting a CUP to import 500 cubic yards of fill; a variance to allow the house to be 40.6 feet in height; and a variance to allow 25.74 percent impervious surface coverage. The existing home was constructed in 1973 as part of the Birch Bluff Upper Minnetonka subdivision that was recorded in 1881. The adjacent properties are all developed with single family homes and are zoned R-1C. This property has floodplain, tree preservation and is included in the Shoreland District. She noted that she had included all the pertinent Zoning Ordinance sections in the packet as well as the applicant’s narrative and their CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 2 of 12 plans. She explained that the applicants have proposed a design which includes a main floor master suite, which widened their design and increased the impervious surface coverage on the property. There have been some changes to the design this they initially submitted their application and have reduced the amount of proposed impervious surface to 25.74, which is still a bit over the allowed amount. She reviewed details of the requests and the criteria that the Planning Commission should use in considering the requests. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions included in the staff report. The City received four letters regarding this application which are now part of the public record, one was included with the staff report, and the others were distributed today. The letters are from the following: Michael and Susan Newberg, 26045 Birch Bluff Road Veronica and Michael Grover, 26020 Birch Bluff Road Bonnie McFee and Jim Prokopanko, 25990 Birch Bluff Road Bonnie and Gianfranco Cuneo, potential owners of 26050 Birch Bluff Road Commissioner Gault asked about the lower-level floor plan that says the typical ceiling height is 9 feet 4.5 inches and asked if that included the sport court. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes the sport court has closer to a 12-foot ceiling, but noted that the applicant can clarify that point. Commissioner Gault noted that he had driven by this property earlier today and the existing driveway looks as though it is providing natural drainage from the south across Birch Bluff Road which was a concern raised in one of the letters. He asked how confident the City was that the holding tank would replace that natural drainage. Planning Director Darling stated that there will also be some drain tile that runs underneath Birch Bluff Road from the property to the south extending north to the Lake between the subject property and the property to the west. The neighbor has attested that the pipes are older and with the City’s reconstruction of Birch Bluff Road, the drain tile would be replaced. Chair Maddy asked if it was City owned or privately owned drain tile. Planning Director Darling noted that they believe this one is for City maintenance and public drain tile. Commissioner Eggenberger asked about the fill being brought in and whether it will affect the height of the home. Planning Director Darling stated that without the fill, they would not be able to do the sport court underneath the garage. Commissioner Gault asked about the sunlight analysis and noted that it appears that a significant increase in height of the home is simply a steeper pitch on the roof. He stated that he understands the aesthetics, but does not feel that is a reason to create a variance if it is only for that reason. Planning Director Darling stated that the question could be deferred to the applicant, She stated that her understanding that the graphics submitted were for illustration purposes only. She stated that the architect is also present on the meeting and can explain the designs in greater detail. Commissioner Huskins stated that the staff report that the plans were that at least 13 trees on the property would be removed and asked if there is a more specific number that could be provided. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 3 of 12 Planning Director Darling stated that number was the best she could decipher based on the survey and noted that they have not yet identified the trees that will be removed in the tree inventory. Commissioner Huskins stated that he would like this specific information from the applicant. Tod Carpenter introduced his wife, Bonnie, their architect Peter Eskuche, their contractor, Kyle Hunt, and their project manager Brent Stevens. Mr. Carpenter stated that they moved to Minnesota in 1996 and all of their children have graduated from Minnesota schools. He stated that they have lived in Eden Prairie for 25 years and as they look forward to retirement years, this area of Shorewood really appealed to them. He stated that they would like to have a larger home on the lake in order to host their grandchildren and other family gatherings. Peter Eskuche referenced the memo in the packet that describes the previous building height definition versus the new definition. Commissioner Gault asked about the height of the home from the street side. Mr. Eskuche stated that the height from the driveway to the peak of the garage is 29 feet and to the ridge of the home from the driveway is 36.5 feet. Chair Maddy clarified that this is a property where the back side of the property drops off which makes the home have to be taller, but it appears that it would actually be well under 35 feet from the street level. Mr. Eskuche stated that this was correct and referenced a house nearby that they designed in 2006 that is within 2 feet of this proposed home, however the grade drop from east to west between the two properties is over 30 feet. He stated that the grade at the front door has the measurement at 36 feet 2 inches. When the code changed, the wording changed from ‘average’ to ‘lowest’ and explained that before that language change, the house would have been conforming. Planning Director Darling stated that there was no change to the way the City measured height based on the change to the definitions. Chair Maddy stated that he can remember years ago there was a clarification of what height was referenced by but nothing has been done in the last few years. Planning Director Darling stated that what was done in January was clean up the language so it no longer referenced average land grade since that was previously defined as the lowest land grade. She clarified that all that was changed with the last code amendment was to make the definition include exactly what the two definitions were trying to say. Commissioner Gault asked if she was saying that it has always been measured from the lowest point within 5 feet and not from any kind of average. Planning Director Darling agreed that this was correct. Mr. Eskuche stated that he and Kyle Hunt have both had other projects that have been approved using the average land grade. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the average land grade was the lowest point of elevation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 4 of 12 Kyle Hunt stated that redefining average to mean lowest is part of the new language. Planning Director Darling stated that as far back as she has worked in the City, the two definitions for building height referred to the average land grade, which was defined as the lowest point of elevation. Commissioner Gault stated that the reason for the code change was to eliminate this type of misunderstanding as to what the average land grade actually meant and was never applied as the average and the measurement was always applied from the lowest point. Chair Maddy asked if there has been a push in the marketplace to increase the ceiling heights from 8 or 9 feet up to 10 or 11 feet. Planning Director Darling stated that she has seen that. Commissioner Gault stated that 9-foot ceiling on the lower and upper level and 10 feet on the main floor. He stated that he can remember one of the developers from the Country Club project told them that 10 feet ceilings in that price range is a more typical, desired height now. Chair Maddy stated that that may be something the Commission wants to pay attention to when there are parcels that drop off in the back on whether or not the code is working in the best interest of those owners. Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks the City’s concern should be what the neighborhood looks like from the street, as opposed to what it looks like from the water. He stated that he would like to see some modification done to the roof pitches to address some of the height issue. Mr. Eskuche stated that the sport court is the same as the rest of the lower level and will have the same ceiling height. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:49 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Jim Prokopanko, 25990 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he and his wife, Bonnie, McFee, live two doors to the east and built their home in about 2006. He stated that they built their home without requiring any exceptions to the building code which required making a lot of compromises. He stated that this property is not naturally conducive to a walk-out. He explained that their main concern is that this variance would be at risk of setting a precedent for other people asking for exceptions. This request is unnatural and the applicants are asking to raise the property and the roof line so they can accommodate a walk-out and a sport court. He stated that the other issue is the hardcover issue and when they built, they also stayed within their hardcover requirements which required compromises. Mr. Carpenter stated that they are sorry and Jim and Bonnie have those concerns and explained that the current home that they plan to tear down is actually a walk-out with two levels above it. He explained that one of the reasons for their proposed ceiling height is that he is 6‘ 7“ tall and they are a tall family. He stated that the new owners of the home to the west of Jim and Bonnie just submitted a letter in support of their design plans. He stated that he feels what they are asking for is very reasonable for his family and is not extreme. He stated that there are a few variances, but they are all very minimal and would ask for the support of the Planning Commission in order to move forward. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 5 of 12 Mr. Prokopanko, suspects that if the new owners of the home to his west are supporting these variance requests, they will probably also ask for variances when they construct their home. He stated that he would like to know that building codes will not be willy-nilly and have variances for reasons that can be avoided. Chair Maddy noted that what the new neighbors ‘might’ do is not in the scope of tonight’s conversation and asked that the discussion remain around the topic at hand. Kyle Hunt, 18324 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, stated that they are the general contractor for the project. He stated that he would like to point out that they have built a number of homes in the City, for example 5580 Woodside Lane, that would not meet the current interpretation of building height that was modified in January. He stated that they also built a home at 28050 Woodside Road and 28180 Woodside Road all within the last 10 years and how the building height was being interpreted is not the same as what was being interpreted in January of 2021. He stated that he is not trying to say anything against Planning Director Darling, but those projects do not and would not meet the criteria that is being imposed on them as of January 2021. He stated that if that was how it was determined, Joe Pazandak would never have given them a building permit. He stated that there are probably other examples of homes that they have built in the City. He stated that the interpretation is different now than what it was and questioned whether Mr. Prokopanko’s home could have been constructed today without variances. He stated that they are not trying to bend the rules or get away with something. He stated the way this is now being interpreted will essentially cut off about half of the architectural styles that are available. He stated that he has begun a conversation with Councilmember Johnson because he thinks something has gone astray and this issue needs to be picked back up because the math doesn’t work. Commissioner Gault stated that they can start with the math and noted that per the architect the roof peak is over 36 feet from the driveway which means at its highest ground level elevation, this home exceeds the building code. He stated that he thinks even if they used the average calculation it would still be over the building code height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Eskuche stated that was incorrect and Commissioner Gault had asked him the measurement to the top of the roof which is not how the building height code is used, and is instead to the midpoint. Chair Maddy asked if Planning Director Darling had run these calculations already. Planning Director Darling stated that she had not run them from every different side of the home, but the building height has always been the average between peak and eve on the highest roof plain and then down to the lowest point of grade within 5 feet. She stated that what the applicant is arguing about is not the average between the peak and eve on roof portion because that is something that was clearly written in the past ordinance. Their concern is that the rules were measured from the average grade around the base of the structure rather than the lowest grade which is the way the code read. There being no additional comments, Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:03 P.M. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that even if the old definition is used, it is moot because that is not what the building height measurement is today. This variance request is coming to the Commission today, not 6 months ago and codes do change from time to time and the City CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 6 of 12 proceeds with the new code. He stated that it does not matter what the code was 6 months ago. He stated that this is new construction and there can be some design changes made in order to make it fit code. Chair Maddy stated that he would echo that point and noted that, in his opinion, the fact that they are asking for 25.74% impervious is incompetence on the part of the architect and feels they should just follow the code. He stated that he does think there is an interesting argument for the variance request because of the way it is laid out on the lot. Commissioner Gault stated that he wasn’t too concerned about the impervious surface because he thinks all that will entail is removing a few of the pavers that are leading to the walkway. He stated that after driving by the lot he is concerned that this lot on the lake is being significantly elevated from where it stands today. He asked if the brown house in the east side of the property was the existing structure. Planning Director Darling stated that is the existing structure and it has not been demolished yet. Commissioner Gault stated that he agrees with Commissioner Eggenberger, even though he understands the floor heights and does not have an issue with that. He stated that he is concerned that the design has not been analyzed enough to come up with an aesthetically pleasing design that meets the needs of the property owners and also falls within the code. Commissioner Huskins asked what is necessitating the vault for water collection and would also like to know about the trees that will be coming down. He stated that the staff report describes it as ‘at least 13’, he doesn’t know if that means 25 or 30 trees and would like more specific information from their tree preservation plan and the need for a vault. Planning Director Darling stated that per the tree preservation policy, they do have to replant on the site and there is a formula for a certain number of trees per tree inches up to 8 per acre and this is a .5-acre property, which is 4 trees. She stated that they are welcome to plant more trees than are required. She explained that the vault is required because when you increase impervious surface 5,000 square feet or more, the City requires that they provide some means of providing rate control. In asking for a variance, the code, similar to commercial properties, then they need to start providing volume control and also treatment. She explained that the vault is an excellent means of providing both rate and volume control and the infiltration helps the treatment aspect of it. They could also provide a rain garden, which would require a maintenance agreement to provide the rate and volume control or the vault and reiterated that the vaults work really well, especially when there is quite a bit of impervious surface coverage. Commissioner Huskins asked if this was all predicating on water that would originate from the property. Planning Director Darling confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Huskins stated that it is not taking into account any other water that may be from other properties. Planning Director Darling stated that it would not but noted that it is allowed to pass through the property without any kind of treatment. Chair Maddy asked the applicants to comment on how many trees they believe will need to be taken down. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 7 of 12 Mr. Carpenter stated that they will be taking down 10-15 trees and are happy to put back more than the 4 that are required. Commissioner Huskins asked about the plan for bringing dirt onto the property. He stated that the note from the applicant stated that street maintenance or cleaning would be done daily, if needed. He stated that he believes the staff report indicated that it will be done daily, which is easier to interpret and understand and has no ambiguity. He asked what the applicant intended with the language ‘if needed’. Planning Director Darling explained that it would be each day, during the grading and filling operation, when the streets are likely to be the dirtiest. She stated that after the ground and the majority of the grading is finished and they are working on other aspects of construction, they would not have to sweep the streets as often. Commissioner Huskins stated that he thinks that language should be tightened up. Commissioner Gault asked how the fill will be brought in. Chair Maddy noted that 500 cubic yards would be the equivalent of about 40 truckloads and they will be utilizing Eureka Road. Planning Director Darling stated that it may not be 40 truckloads because it will depend on the size of the truck. Chair Maddy stated that he is not concerned about hauling the fill. He reminded the Commission that staff is recommending approval with the 7 conditions listed in the staff report. Maddy moved, to recommend approval of the CUP request for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards and variances to impervious surface coverage and building height for Tod and Bonnie Carpenter for property located at 26050 Birch Bluff Road, subject to the 7 conditions noted in the staff report. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Gault stated that he has concerns about the design and is bothered by the fact that this was basically designed with the intent of getting a variance. He stated that he would prefer to see the house designed and kept within code requirements. He stated that he doesn’t have an issue with the fill other than the potential for a drainage issue. He also doesn’t care about the increase in impervious surface variance request. Eggenberger moved, Gault seconded, to recommend approval of the CUP request for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards and variance to impervious surface coverage, but deny the variance request for building height for Tod and Bonnie Carpenter for property located at 26050 Birch Bluff Road, subject to the 7 conditions noted in the staff report. Roll Call Vote – ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. Planning Director Darling stated that this item will come before the City Council on June 28, 2021. B. PUBLIC HEARING – Sign Ordinance Amendments Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: Citywide CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 8 of 12 Planning Director Darling stated that this is a request for text amendments related to political signage. She stated that the Commission had discussed this at their April meeting and gave specific directions on changes that are reflected in the draft ordinance being presented. She gave a brief overview of the recommended amendments. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the letter from Pam McDonald talks about many places in the City that have a drop-off or ditch close to the road that would prohibit placing any campaign sign at least 10 feet away from the road. He stated that he knows that is tough for some people, but thinks a 10 feet distance is fine and doesn’t know how the city would make an exception for a ditch or a drop-off. Commissioner Huskins asked if there was a height limitation to the sign and asked if the sign were placed in a drop-off, could they just use a taller stake so the sign would still be visible. Commissioner Eggenberger questioned how the City could actually define ‘drop-off’. Planning Director Darling explained that there are height restrictions outside of the election period but not during the election period. The Commission discussed various remedies to the problem of having a ditch and still being able to display signs. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:27 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:27 P.M. The Commission discussed some language tweaks to make things more clear and eliminate loopholes and make it clear that it is election related signage. Huskins moved, recommending approval of the Sign Ordinance Amendments, as amended by staff so it is all election related. Planning Director Darling asked if he meant to exclude non-commercial signage. Commissioner Gault suggested that the Commission defer making a recommendation on these amendments until the next meeting because he doesn’t want to recommend approval of something that he has not seen and would like to see the final wording. There was consensus among the Commission to wait to make a recommendation until they see the final draft. Commissioner Huskins withdrew his motion. Gault moved, Huskins seconded, tabling approval of the Sign Ordinance Amendments until the next Commission meeting. Roll Call Vote – ayes – all. Motion carried 4/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 9 of 12 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Variance to Front Yard Setback Applicants: Justin Robinette Location: 4530 Enchanted Point Planning Technician Notermann explained that this request is for a variance request to construct an enclosed entryway and porch that would be 22.5 feet from the property line that abuts the public right of way and the required setback is 35 feet. She stated that based on the definition makes Enchanted Lane the front yard even though it is an unimproved right-of-way. The existing home was constructed in 1980 and is 29.1 feet from the front yard line making it a legally non- conforming structure. Staff reviewed the request according to the criteria and recommend approval. Chair Maddy asked if the front of the parcel is against Enchanted Lane or Enchanted Point. Planning Technician Notermann stated that the front yard line is against Enchanted Lane on the west side and Enchanted Point runs along the south side. Chair Maddy stated that he thought the driveway entrance to the lot dictated what was considered the front of the parcel. Planning Technician Notermann reviewed the definition for lot line-front according to the code that states, “The front of a lot shall be, for purpose of complying with this chapter, the boundary having the least width abutting a public right-of-way or private street. Chair Maddy gave the opportunity for public input. Justin Robinette, 4530 Enchanted Point, explained that their primary purpose for this addition is to add a foyer to improve the access and safety of the entrance point. He stated that they feel it is consistent with the neighborhood and add curb appeal. He stated that they also plan to redo a high standing deck that will also make the entry point safer. Commissioner Eggenberger asked about the staircase coming down from the door and whether it meets code. Mr. Robinette’s builder confirmed that the staircase will meet code requirements. Gault moved, Huskins seconded, to recommend approval of the Variance to Front Yard Setback for property located at 4530 Enchanted Point, with the condition as presented in the staff report. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried 4/0. B. Variance for Detached Garage Height Applicant: Kuhl Design Build Location: 28110 Woodside Road Planning Technician Notermann explained that the variance request for a detached garage height would have the structure at 20.7 feet and be considered a two-story structure because the zoning regulations limit detached accessory structures for 15 feet. She explained that the second story is accessible with a pull-down ladder, but staff views it as a second floor because the ceiling height CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 10 of 12 is 9.9 feet. She noted that the existing home was constructed in 1910 and the proposed design and slope is consistent with the general character of the house. The applicant also has stated that the topography of the area will obscure the height of the structure. Staff has reviewed the criteria and recommends denial of the variance request. Chair Maddy gave the opportunity for public input. th Dan Murphy with Kuhl Design Build, 1515 5 Street S, Hopkins, stated that they are basically replacing the existing garage with a larger garage and matching the pitch of the home. He stated that they are not making a second story out of it because there are no windows or accessibility to it other than a pull-down ladder. He stated that something that he neglected to include in the practical difficulties was that there is no basement under the house other than a 10 x 10 mechanical room. He stated that by having the pull-down ladder it creates the ability for storage in the garage. He stated that if this were attached to the structure which would take away the charm of the lot, they would not need a variance, but he thinks that would diminish the appearance in the neighborhood and for the house. Mike Giebenhain, the property owner, stated that one other point is that by attaching the structure, it would increase the hardscape of the property which would be unnecessary and would also require taking down more trees. Mr. Murphy noted that nothing will be affected by the height of the structure. No site lines to the lake or neighbors will be blocked because the structure sits in a bit of a valley. He agreed that the goal is to not alter the landscape or the tree cover but keep as much as possible. Commissioner Gault asked if the new garage was to be built on the same footprint as the existing garage. Mr. Murphy stated that there is some additional footprint, but it has been designed so it will cut into the driveway space and is still well below the requirements. Chair Maddy gave the opportunity for public input. There was no input. Commissioner Huskins asked about he distance between the house and the garage. Mr. Giebenhain stated that he thinks it is around 40-50 feet. Commissioner Huskins questioned whether the pitch of the roof matching the home would to the casual observer if the building is separated by a great distance. Mr. Murphy stated that it is a historic house, so, in his opinion, the pitch matching does matter. This is a very unique structure to the area as well as historically. He stated that there are accoutrements that go along with it, such as cantilevers and the detailing above the doors that would not work if the roof pitch was lower. There was discussion about the various roof line, slope options, storage space height, possible building design options that would not need a variance. Chair Maddy stated that he is wondering if the City needs to look at the 15-foot height requirement for this type of structure. He stated that this request does not seem unreasonable especially be cause if it were attached to the home a variance would not be needed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 11 of 12 Commissioner Gault stated that he likes this design, but is hesitant about voting in approval of it just because of his stance on the earlier request for a height variation on Birch Bluff. Mr. Murphy stated that one of the bigger differences between this project and the one on Birch Bluff is the fact that this project does not bring in any fill to change the landscape to make the height an issue or doing anything to manipulate the property to cause the structure to do higher. He stated that if this whole space was trusses and had no storage space, a variance would still be needed because of the design. He stated that in his opinion the fact that there is storage space is a moot point. Eggenberger moved, Gault seconded, to recommend approval of the Variance for Detached Garage Height for property located at 28110 Woodside Road, with the conditions as presented in the staff report. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried 4/0. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the Commission should take a look at the rules for detached structures. Chair Maddy asked for Planning Director Darling’s opinion on the height restrictions for detached accessory structures. Planning Director Darling stated that the City has about the same restrictions as other cities. Commissioner Gault asked if it changed things if there were living quarters located above the garage. Planning Director Darling explained that it would be a non-conforming use because the City doesn’t allow living quarters above a detached garage. Commissioner Gault asked if the City allows for secondary residences on a property. Planning Director Darling stated that they do allow an accessory dwelling unit, but it has to be attached to the main home. Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks this issue deserves some further discussion. Commissioner Huskins stated that he struggled with his vote on this issue because of conflating the need for storage with the need for preserving a unique architectural design. He stated that preserving the design, in his opinion, is a much stronger argument than the need for the storage space. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. REPORTS • Council Meeting Council Liaison Callies reported on matters considered and actions taken during the recent Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). She noted that the Council Liaison for the remainder of the year will be Councilmember Gorham. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 1, 2021 Page 12 of 12 Planning Director Darling stated for the next meeting, the Commission will look at the Sign Ordinance related to political signage, a lot line adjustment, a variance request for a side yard setback, and a CUP for fence. Commissioner Gault asked what was in the existing regulations related to cannabis dispensaries. He asked if it would fall under tobacco shops or have its own designation. Council Liaison Callies stated that it has not been discussed since she has been on the Council but knows that other cities have expressed concern about manufacturing operations. Commissioner Gault suggested that the City take some time to put some thought into this issue so they are ahead of it rather than behind it. Planning Director Darling stated that currently the City prohibits cannabis dispensaries, but depending on State regulations, that may change. She also noted that the State has also been looking at changing PUDs so you cannot take aesthetics into consideration. 8. ADJOURNMENT Gault moved, Huskins seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 1, 2021, at 9:29 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. Kbdpc!Hvtubgtpo!boe!Bmmjtpo!Tqjft! 5976!Gfsodspgu!Esjwf! Tipsfxppe!NO!66442! ! Djuz!pg!Tipsfxppe! 36!Nbz!3132!)vqebufe!38!Kvof!3132*! ! Gfodf!Ifjhiu!Jodsfbtf!Sfrvjsjoh!Dpoejujpobm!Vtf!Qfsnju! ! Xf!ibwf!sfdfoumz!dpnqmfufe!b!ofx!ipnf!cvjme!bekbdfou!up!Mblf!Xjmmjbn!boe!mppl!gpsxbse!up! kpjojoh!uif!Tipsfxppe!dpnnvojuz/!Xf!bsf!sftqfdugvmmz!sfrvftujoh!qfsnjttjpo!up!jodsfbtf!uif! ifjhiu!pg!pvs!cbdlzbse!gfodf!gspn!gpvs!gppu!up!gjwf!gppu!up!bmmpx!vt!up!tbgfmz!dpoubjo!pvs!uxp! epht-!Tbntpo!boe!Nbujmeb/!Tbntpo!boe!Nbujmeb!bsf!wfsz!hppe.obuvsfe!fjhiu!boe!tjy!zfbs!pme! Ujcfubo!Nbtujggt!xiptf!ifjhiut!sfrvjsf!b!gjwf.gppu!gfodf!gps!dpoubjonfou/!Cpui!epht!ibwf! dpnqmfufe!uif!fyufotjwf!usbjojoh!sfrvjsfe!up!cf!sfdphoj{fe!bt!Bnfsjdbo!Lfoofm!Dmvc!Dbojof! Hppe!Djuj{fot/!Uif!epht!buufoe!ovstjoh!ipnft!jo!b!uifsbqz!dbqbdjuz!boe!xf!xbou!uifn!up!cf! bcmf!up!fokpz!ujnf!jo!uif!cbdlzbse!xjuipvu!offejoh!up!cf!mfbtife/!! Xf!bsf!lffomz!bxbsf!pg!pvs!sftqpotjcjmjuz!up!qsftfswf!bo!pqfo-!bddfttjcmf!boe!buusbdujwf! mblfgspou/!Uif!qspqptfe!gfodf!nffut!bmm!puifs!gfodjoh!sfrvjsfnfout!nboebufe!cz!uif!djuz-!up! jodmvef!mblf!tfucbdl!boe!pqfooftt/!Ju!jt!b!tuzmf!uibu!xjmm!cf!fbtjmz!dpodfbmfe!cz!wfhfubujpo!boe! qmbdfnfou/!Jo!sfgfsfodf!up!uif!qfsgpsnbodf!tuboebset!sfgfsfodfe!jo!uif!\[pojoh!Sfhvmbujpot;! 2/!Uif!Tipsfxppe!3151!Dpnqsfifotjwf!Qmbo!opuft!uibu!Tipsfxppe!jt!dpnnjuufe!up! lffqjoh!uif!tipsf!mboe!bsfbt!bt!obuvsbm!bt!qpttjcmf!)qh/!:8*/!Jo!uif!tqjsju!pg!uif! dpnqsfifotjwf!qmbo!xf!ibwf!tfmfdufe!b!cmbdl!dibjo.mjol!boe!dfebs!bmufsobujoh!cpbse! gfodf!uibu!xjmm!cmfoe!tfbnmfttmz!joup!uif!wfhfubujpo/! 3/!Uif!qspqptfe!fyusb!23!jodift!pg!gfodf!jt!dpnqbujcmf!xjui!qsftfou!boe!gvuvsf!mboe!vtft! jo!uif!bsfb!boe!xpvme!opu!ufoe!up!ps!bduvbmmz!efqsfdjbuf!uif!mblftipsf!pg!Mblf!Xjmmjbn/! Uif!qspqptfe!gfodf!sfnbjot!dmptf!up!uif!ipvtf-!xjuijo!tfucbdl!hvjefmjoft!boe!xjmm!cf! qspgfttjpobmmz!mboetdbqfe!up!beejujpobmmz!dpodfbm!jut!qptjujpo!gspn!ofjhicpst!boe! bozpof!fokpzjoh!bdujwjujft!po!Mblf!Xjmmjbn/! 4/!Uif!qspqptfe!gfodf!xpvme!qspwjef!op!beejujpobm!cvsefo!po!uif!djuzÉt!tfswjdf!dbqbcjmjuz! boe!xpvme!cf!bddpnnpebufe!xjui!fyjtujoh!qvcmjd!tfswjdft-!jodmvejoh!qvcmjd!tusffut/! 5/!Uif!ftubcmjtinfou-!nbjoufobodf!boe!pqfsbujpo!pg!uif!gfodf!xpvme!qspnpuf!boe! foibodf!uif!hfofsbm!qvcmjd!xfmgbsf!boe!xpvme!opu!cf!efusjnfoubm!up!ps!foebohfs!qvcmjd! tbgfuz/!Uif!jodsfbtf!pg!uif!gfodfÉt!ifjhiu!epft!opu!pctusvdu!boz!tjhiumjoft!boe!bmmpxt! gps!Tbntpo!boe!Nbujmeb!up!cf!tbgfmz!dpoubjofe/!Uif!ephtÉ!bcjmjuz!up!kvnq!pwfs!b!5gu! gfodf!boe!uifjs!mbdl!pg!spbe!tfotf!nfbot!uifjs!pxo!xfmgbsf!jt!dpnqspnjtfe!xjuipvu!uif! gfodf!ifjhiu!jodsfbtf!sfrvftufe/! 6/!Uif!qspqptfe!vtf!pg!uif!dpoejujpobm!vtf!qfsnju-!up!tbgfmz!dpoubjo!pvs!epnftujd!epht-! dpogpsnt!up!uif!bqqmjdbcmf!sfhvmbujpot!pg!uif!ejtusjdu!boe!uif!djuz!dpef/!! Po!uif!gpmmpxjoh!qbhf!xf!ibwf!jodmvefe!qjduvsft!pg!uif!gfodf!tuzmft!xf!cfmjfwf!xjmm!cmfoe! tfbnmfttmz!joup!uif!hbsefo!bsfb!xjui!uifjs!beejujpobm!uxfmwf!jodift!jo!ifjhiu/!Xf!ibwf!bmtp! jodmvefe!qipupt!pg!pvs!epht!gps!sfgfsfodf/!! ! Qspqptfe!Gfodf!Tuzmft! !! B!6gu!dfebs!bmufsobujoh!cpbse!B!6gucmbdl!wjozm!dibjo.mjol!gfodf!jt!qspqptfe!jo!uif! gfodf!jt!qspqptfe!gps!uif!tusffu!cbdlzbse!cfuxffo!uif!ipvtf!boe!Mblf!Xjmmjbn! gbdjoh!boe!ofbs!tjef!pg!ipvtf!! ! Tbntpo!boe!Nbujmeb! !!!! ! ! ! CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · 952.960.7900 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us · cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Emma Notermann, Planning Technician MEETING DATE: July 6, 2021 REQUEST: Variance to side yard setback APPLICANT: Kimberly Poe LOCATION: 23320 Park Street REVIEW DEADLINE: September 17, 2021 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Low to Medium Density Residential ZONING: R-1D FILE NUMBER: 21.13 REQUEST: The applicant requests a variance to the setback from the side yard line to construct an addition their existing non-conforming house. The proposed addition would be located 7.2 feet from the side property line where 10 feet is required. Notice of this application and the public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting. BACKGROUND Context: The existing home was constructed in 1924 and is located as close as six feet from the west side property line. The lot was created in 1887 as part of the Ball’s Addition to Excelsior plat. The R-1D zoning district requires a side yard setback of 10 feet, so the house is considered a legally non-conforming structure. Most of the adjacent properties are all developed with single-family homes and zoned R-1D or R-1C. Across Park Street, to the south of the subject property, is Our Saviors Lutheran Church. Page 2 Applicable Code Sections: Section 1201.13 subd. 5. d. of the zoning regulations requires a setback of 10 feet from the side yard line. Section 1201.03 subd. 1(i) of the zoning regulations allows the expansion of non-conforming single-family residential units. Section 1201.03 subd. 1(i) of the zoning regulations allows the expansion of non-conforming single-family residential units provided- 1. That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located; The proposed addition does not comply with the setback requirement and consequently a variance is required for this expansion. *There are additional criteria in this section, but since the proposed development does not meet the first regulation, a variance is required. ANALYSIS The applicant’s narrative is attached and indicates that she proposes to add a new porch and bathroom addition on the west side of her existing home. The proposed addition would be set farther from the side lot line than the existing home currently sits. The proposed addition would encroach on the side yard setback by 2.8 feet, where the existing home already encroaches on the same side yard setback by 4 feet. Variance Criteria: Section 1201.05 subd.3.a. of the zoning regulations sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. These criteria are open to interpretation. 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. They propose 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 non-conforming location of the existing home. a. Reasonable: The applicant has proposed a reasonable residential use on the property. b. Unique Situation vs. Self-Created: The situation is unique as the home was constructed prior to the application of modern zoning regulations that have made the home a legally non- conforming structure under today’s standards. Page 3 c. Essential Character: The proposed addition would not be out of character for the neighborhood. It would not encroach farther towards the property than the house already does, so the character of the lot will remain unchanged. 3. Economic Considerations: The applicant has not proposed the variance solely based on economic considerations, but to enhance the livability of the home. 4. Impact on Area: The property owner is not proposing anything that would impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire, or increase the impact on adjacent streets. The adjacent home to the west, at 23340 Park Street. is about 20 feet away from the existing home. However, as previously mentioned, the new addition will not be closer to the neighboring property than the existing home already is. 5. Impact to Public Welfare, Other Lands or Improvements: Staff finds the proposed addition would not be detrimental to the public welfare as it would be a typical addition for an older home. 6. Minimum to Alleviate Practical Difficulty: Staff finds the variance request is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties on the property. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the variance proposal meets the criteria above and recommends approval of the variance while acknowledging that the variance criteria are open to interpretation. Consequently, the Planning Commission could reasonably find otherwise. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance, staff recommends that the applicant be required to acquire all necessary permits prior to construction. ATTACHMENTS Location map Applicants’ narrative and plans Correspondence Received Marie Darling From:McDonald <p.m.mcdonald@usfamily.net> Sent:Sunday, May 2, 2021 2:40 PM To:Marie Darling Subject:RE: Amendments to the Sign Regulations Thank you for sending this information. I was unable to open the Staff Report document as it appeared to be damaged, however the minutes were readable. Just a comment regarding the setback of ten feet. Many places in the city have a drop-off or ditch close to the road that would prohibit placing any campaign signs with that amount of setback. I have a proposal for signs that I would like the City to consider. Since we don’t have sidewalks, and we love to walk, it is important for people to be aware of traffic on the road when they are walking. Many people walk with their backs to traffic and with some kind of headphones on. If pedestrians walk facing traffic, on the left side of the road, that would enable awareness of oncoming cars. During my lifetime I’ve heard of people being injured, even death, because of a lack of awareness of traffic. A sign that says “Pedestrians Keep Left” would encourage awareness of safer ways to use the roadways. Of course what I’m proposing is a traffic sign (like a No Parking sign). I hope that this is something the City of Shorewood could do to help people protect themselves. Best Regards, Pam McDonald From: Marie Darling \[mailto:MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us\] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 4:24 PM To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Cc: Emma Notermann <ENotermann@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Amendments to the Sign Regulations I was very excited to hear that you are interested in the proposed ordinance amendments. However, I wanted to let you know that I will be requesting a continuance of the review of the sign amendments to the June 1 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission won’t have a draft to review but they will be opening and continuing the public hearing. If you want to come and request the opportunity to speak on this topic, you can do so. You are also welcome st to come to the meeting on June 1. The links to the May meeting will be available on the city’s website late Tuesday afternoon, typically before 6:00 p.m. Because you requested for information on what has been discussed so far, I have attached a copy of the original staff report and the minutes from the April planning commission where the amendments were discussed generally. Please let me know if you have any questions. Marie Darling Planning Director 952-960-7912 mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road 1 Shorewood, MN 55331 MN Data Practices Notification: Pursuant to MN Data Practices Chapter 13 all government data including email communications is presumed to be public unless there is a specific state statute, federal law, or temporary classification that classifies it otherwise. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us 2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 6 of 10 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. 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. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 7 of 10 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. 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. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 8 of 10 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. 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. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 Page 9 of 10 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. Btl!MND!}!Vq!gps!Ejtdvttjpo Dbo!Djujft!Qspijcju!Dbnqbjho!! Tjhot!boe!Gmbht@ Djuz!Sfhvmbujpot qptufst/!Uif!V/T/!Efqbsunfou!pg!Mbcps!pggfst!b!tjuf!uibu!ifmqt! Ep!djujft!ibwf!uif!bvuipsjuz!up!qspijcju!dbnqbjho! efufsnjof!xijdi!qptufst!zpv!offe!bu!iuuqt;00xfcbqqt/epm/ R hpw0fmbxt0qptufst/iun/!Boe!uif!Njooftpub!Efqbsunfou! ! MND !!Xf!ibwf!cffo!pg!Mbcps!boe!Joevtusz!xjmm!fwfo!opujgz!zpv!wjb!fnbjm!xifo! hfuujoh!uijt!rvftujpo!vqebuft!ibwf!cffo!nbef!up!sfrvjsfe!qptufst/!Zpv!dbo!tjho!vq! b!mpu!mbufmz!cfdbvtf!gps!uiftf!vqebuft!bu!xxx/emj/no/hpw0bcpvu.efqbsunfou0 uifsf!jt!tpnf!dpo.xpslqmbdf.qptufst/! gvtjpo!bcpvu!b!tubuf!Hfofsbmmz-!uif!mbx!sfrvjsjoh!uif!mbcps!mbx!qptufs!xjmm!joejdbuf! mbx!uibu!qsffnqut!gps!xipn!ju!nvtu!cf!ejtqmbzfe/!Tpnf!qptufst!nvtu!cf!ejtqmbzfe! mpdbm!tjho!psejobodft!jo!qmbdft!bwbjmbcmf!up!kpc!bqqmjdbout!bt!xfmm!bt!fnqmpzfft/!Tpnf! djujft-!gps!fybnqmf-!qptu!b!opujdf!po!uifjs!xfctjuf!tubujoh-! evsjoh!fmfdujpo! tfbtpo/!Jo!tipsu-!djuz!”Bqqmjdbout!ibwf!sjhiut!voefs!gfefsbm!boe!tubuf!fnqmpznfou! sfhvmbujpot!nvtu!dpn.mbxt-•!boe!mjol!up!wbsjpvt!fnqmpznfou!qptufst/!Ju“t!b!hppe!jefb! F U WP qmz!xjui!cpui!tubuf!mbx!up!ep!uibu!jo!beejujpo!up!qmbdjoh!qptufst!jo!uif!xpslqmbdf!boe! boe!uif!Gjstu!Bnfoe.po!uif!djuz“t!fnqmpzff!jousbofu/ nfou!up!uif!V/T/! Botxfsfe!cz!Ivnbo!Sftpvsdft!Ejsfdups!Mbvsb!Lvtiofs;!mlvtiofsAmnd/psh Dpotujuvujpo/!Tubuf!mbx!)Njooftpub!Tubuvuft-!tfdujpo!322C/156*! qspwjeft!b!mjnjufe!qsffnqujpo!pg!djujft“!bvuipsjuz!up!sfhvmbuf! Dpotusvdujpo!Sjtl dbnqbjho!tjhot!evsjoh!uif!fmfdujpo!tfbtpo!)efgjofe!bt!57!ebzt! cfgpsf!uif!tubuf!hfofsbm!qsjnbsz!voujm!21!ebzt!bgufs!uif!tubuf! Pvs!djuz!jt!bcpvu!up!cvjme!b!ofx!dpnnvojuz! hfofsbm!fmfdujpo*/!Tubuf!mbx!sfrvjsft!djujft!up!bmmpx!uif!qptujoh! dfoufs/!Ipx!dbo!xf!qspufdu!uif!cvjmejoh!jo!dbtf!ju! R pg!opodpnnfsdjbm!tjhot!pg!boz!tj{f!ps!ovncfs!evsjoh!uijt!ujnf/! !jt!ebnbhfe!evsjoh!dpotusvdujpo@ Ipxfwfs-!evsjoh!uif!sftu!pg!uif!zfbs-!tubuf!mbx!qfsnjut!djujft!up! MND sfhvmbuf!uif!tj{f!boe!ovncfs!pg!opodpnnfsdjbm!tjhot/!!!Uif!djuz!tipvme!nblf!tvsf!uif!ofx!cvjmejoh!voefs! Jo!beejujpo-!dpvsut!ibwf!svmfe!uibu!uif!Gjstu!Bnfoenfou!dpotusvdujpo!jt!dpwfsfe!cz!cvjmefs“t!sjtl!jotvsbodf/!Uijt!jt!b! qspijcjut!djujft!gspn!sfhvmbujoh!tjhot!cbtfe!po!uifjs!dpoufou/!tqfdjbmj{fe!uzqf!pg!qspqfsuz!jotvsbodf!uibu!qspufdut!cvjmejoht! Cftu!qsbdujdf!tvhhftut!bwpjejoh!upubm!cbot!po!opodpnnfsdjbm!voefs!dpotusvdujpo!gspn!mptt/!Dpwfsbhf!jt!vtvbmmz!xsjuufo!po!bo! mbxo!tjhot!jo!sftjefoujbm!bsfbt!boe!vtjoh!dbvujpo!jo!bepqujoh!bmm.sjtl!cbtjt!boe!dpwfst!mptt!gspn!nboz!uzqft!pg!dbvtft-!jodmve. qspwjtjpot!uibu!nbz!gbwps!tpnf!nfttbhft!pwfs!puifst/!Djuz!joh!gjsf-!tupsn!ebnbhf-!uifgu-!boe!wboebmjtn/!Nbufsjbmt-!tvq. psejobodft!dbo!sfhvmbuf!uif!tj{f!boe!ovncfs!pg!tjhot-!cvu!opu! qmjft-!tdbggpmejoh-!boe!frvjqnfou!bsf!vtvbmmz!dpwfsfe!bt!xfmm/! uifjs!dpoufou/Cvjmefs“t!sjtl!jotvsbodf!jt!b!op.gbvmu!dpwfsbhf!uibu!qspufdut!uif! Dpvsut!ibwf!bmtp!sfdphoj{fe!uibu!uif!ejtqmbz!pg!gmbht!dbo!dpo .djuz-!dpousbdups-!boe!tvcdpousbdupst/!Uif!djuz!tipvme!tqfdjgz! tujuvuf!fyqsfttjwf!dpoevdu!qspufdufe!voefs!uif!Gjstu!Bnfoe.jo!uif!dpotusvdujpo!dpousbdu!xip!jt!sftqpotjcmf!gps!cvzjoh!uif! nfou/!Jg!sfhvmbujoh!gmbht-!djujft!tipvme!vtf!dbvujpo!up!bwpje!cvjmefs“t!sjtl!jotvsbodf/! gbwpsjoh!tpnf!uzqft!pg!gmbht!)qbsujdvmbsmz-!uif!V/T/!gmbh*!pwfs!Uif!Mfbhvf!pg!Njooftpub!Djujft!Jotvsbodf!Usvtu“t!)MNDJU*! puifs!gmbht/!Jg!pof!uzqf!pg!opodpnnfsdjbm!gmbh!jt!bddfqubcmf-!boz!qspqfsuz!dpwfsbhf!qspwjeft!bvupnbujd!cvjmefs“t!sjtl!dpwfsbhf! gps!cvjmejoht!voefs!dpotusvdujpo-!bmufsbujpo-!sfqbjs-!ps!fyqbo opodpnnfsdjbm!gmbh!tipvme!cf!bmmpxfe/!Mfbso!npsf!gspn!uif!. MND!jogpsnbujpo!nfnp!bu!xxx/mnd/psh0tjhot/tjpo-!jg!uif!ftujnbufe!upubm!qspkfdu!dptu!jt!mftt!uibo!%4!njmmjpo/! Dpotusvdujpo!qspkfdut!voefs!uijt!uisftipme!ep!opu!ibwf!up! Botxfsfe!cz!Sftfbsdi!Buupsofz!Kbdpc!Hmbtt;!khmbttAmnd/psh cf!sfqpsufe!boe!tdifevmfe!gps!uif!cvjmefs“t!sjtl!dpwfsbhf!up! bqqmz/!Ipxfwfs-!uif!cvjmejoh!nvtu!cf!jodmvefe!jo!uif!tdifevmf! Fnqmpznfou!Mbx pg!qspqfsuz!bu!uif!nfncfs“t!tvctfrvfou!sfofxbm/!Qbznfou! pg!b!dmbjn!jt!tvckfdu!up!b!nfncfs“t!efevdujcmf/!MNDJU!dbo! Ju“t!cffo!b!xijmf!tjodf!xf“wf!difdlfe!up!nblf! tpnfujnft!qspwjef!ijhifs!mjnjut!gps!bo!beejujpobm!qsfnjvn! tvsf!pvs!djuz!ibt!bmm!uif!dpssfdu!fnqmpznfou!mbx! R efqfoejoh!po!uif!tdpqf!boe!dptu!pg!uif!qspkfdu/!Jg!uif!nfn. !qptufst/!Ipx!dbo!xf!difdl!po!uijt@ cfs!epft!opu!qspwjef!uif!cvjmefs“t!sjtl!dpwfsbhf-!ju!tipvme! MND !!Ju“t!jnqpsubou!up!nblf!tvsf!zpv!vqebuf!sfrvjsfe!sfrvjsf!uif!dpwfsbhf!up!cf!qvsdibtfe!cz!uif!dpousbdups/!Mfbso! xpslqmbdf!qptufst!bt!ofx!mbxt!bsf!qbttfe/!Gps!fybnqmf-!npsf!gspn!uif!MND!jogpsnbujpo!nfnp!bu!xxx/mnd/psh0 ND evsjoh!3131-!DPWJE.sfmbufe!mfbwf!mbxt!sfrvjsfe!tqfdjbm!qspq.hvjef/! qptujoht!boe!opujdft!up!fnqmpzfft/!Gpsuvobufmz-!uifsf!bsf! gsff!xfctjuft!pggfsjoh!sfrvjsfe!gfefsbm!boe!tubuf!fnqmpznfou! Botxfsfe!cz!Sjtl!Nbobhfnfou!Buupsofz!Disjt!Tnjui;!dtnjuiAmnd/psh NJOOFTPUB!DJUJFT!!!}!!!NBZ0KVO!3132!!!}!!!38