Loading...
08 03 2021 Planning Commission Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2021 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Huskins, Gault and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; Planning Technician Notermann; and, Council Liaison Johnson Absent: None 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Riedel moved, Huskins seconded, approving the agenda for July 6, 2021, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  June 1, 2021 Gault moved, Huskins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2021, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 (Riedel abstained). 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 – C.U.P. for a Fence Applicant: Jacob Gustafson and Allison Spies Location: 4865 Ferncroft Drive Planning Technician Notermann noted that the applicant has applied for a C.U.P. for a fence that is taller than the height established for shoreline fences. She stated that they would like to install a five-foot, black vinyl chain link fence where the Code states that no fence can be taller than four feet in the Shoreland District. She reviewed the conditions that staff is recommending. Planning Director Darling noted that City Engineer Budde will stop out at the property later this week in order to ensure that removing the boulder wall, as staff is recommending, will not cause any erosion or other issues now that the rain garden has been constructed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 2021 Page 2 of 8 Planning Technician Notermann stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Riedel noted that the staff report lists a condition that the applicant have “plans” to remove or relocate the boulder wall and asked if they would be required to remove or relocate the wall. Planning Technician Notermann clarified that, as noted by Planning Director Darling, the City Engineer will stop out to the property and evaluate the boulder wall situation. Commissioner Gault suggested that the condition language be changed to say that the applicant is required to comply with the plans regarding the boulder wall, as approved by staff. Planning Director Darling explained that the boulder wall pre-dated the subdivision, was not shown on any documents that were submitted, and were in an area that was heavily vegetated. Chair Maddy asked if the City knows when the boulder wall was installed. Planning Director Darling stated that it was likely legal at the time it was installed, but putting the property line and easements on top of the wall created the issue. She stated that if it had shown up in the original documents, it could have been handled with the subdivision rather than having to go back now with something like an encroachment agreement. Commissioner Riedel asked if staff would be open to an encroachment agreement pending the advice of the City Engineer regarding erosion. Planning Director Darling stated that staff is open to an encroachment agreement. Chair Maddy asked if the language of the condition should be changed to read that the applicant will abide by staff decision on what to do with the boulder wall. Planning Director Darling noted that staff can make a recommendation, but the Council will have to make the decision on either an encroachment agreement or removal of the boulder wall. She explained that she does not think the language needs to be changed at this point. Commissioner Huskins asked staff, in their recommendation, to include the terminology ‘not greater than’ five feet. Commissioner Eggenberger asked why this request is for a CUP and not a variance. Planning Director Darling stated that it is a permanent fence and read aloud a portion of the City Code that explains that a fence that varies by height, design, or location, can be approved with a CUP, which means that it is an allowed use in the zoning district. She stated that she assumes it was stated this way in the Code in order to allow some flexibility. Jacob Gustafson, 4865 Ferncroft, thanked the Planning Department staff because they have been very helpful throughout this whole process. He stated that he and his wife, Allison Spies, are new transplants from Michigan. He assured the Commission that their goal is to be good residents of the City and explained that they were unaware that the boulder wall existed because it was hidden behind vegetation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 2021 Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Gault asked why Mr. Gustafson was requesting a five foot tall fence rather than complying with the four foot height. Mr. Gustafson explained that their main reason is their dogs and noted that they have two large Tibetan Mastiffs. He noted that their standing height is about 3.5 feet, so they wanted to make sure that they had a good, secure fencing system to ensure that they are contained in the yard. He noted that in Michigan, they took one of their dogs on nursing home visits prior to COVID-19 and noted that he had submitted pictures to the City so they could get an idea of what the dogs look like. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Gault referred to the past request from resident on Country Club Lane for a higher fence than what the City allowed. He reminded the Commission that they had recommended denial of the past request because they felt there were other ways to control the animals and keep them contained. He stated that he would like to see the Commission be consistent in their recommendations. Chair Maddy asked for specifics about the Country Club Lane request. Commissioner Gault stated that they were asking for a 6 foot tall fence with board on board and noted that they had also requested the fence height because of their two large dogs and the location of the sidewalk. He stated that he sees this an opportunity for invisible fencing. Commissioner Riedel stated that he agrees with the idea of consistency, however, he feels that what is subjectively different in this situation is the other fencing was in a front yard and the concern about the appearance of large fences along the road. In this case, this is a back yard and is primarily the neighbors and the lake that would see the higher fence. Commissioner Gault reiterated his concern that if the Commission recommends approval in this situation, they will be inconsistent with the recent, similar situation along Country Club Lane. Commissioner Riedel stated that this situation feels less intrusive for the neighbors because this is a transparent fence in a backyard and not a board on board fence along the street. He noted that he understands and agrees that this is completely subjective and inconsistent. Chair Maddy stated that he does not like relaxing City Code due to pet size. Commissioner Riedel stated that there are some dogs that when they get zapped with the electric fencing get aggressive rather than learn not to cross the invisible line. He stated that invisible fencing is not an option for every dog and noted that it is also more difficult to train an older dog. Commissioner Huskins asked if the planned landscaping would be located above the fence. He explained that if the shrubbery or landscaping, as it matures, hides a 4 or 5 foot fence in the backyard, it would make very little difference to him. Commissioner Gault reiterated that he is not thrilled with the idea that the Commission would recommend denial for one request and approval for the other, when they are very similar requests. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he thinks the City has a Code on fencing to protect the site lines of the City and granting a CUP to change that, in his opinion is not feasible. He stated CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 2021 Page 4 of 8 that he doesn’t like to idea of allowing it because of the size of dogs and noted that there are other ways to control your pets. Commissioner Gault asked if there had been any feedback from the neighbors regarding this request. Planning Technician Notermann stated that the City did not receive any input from the neighbors. Commissioner Eggenberger asked to hear more of Commissioner Riedel’s thoughts on this item. Commissioner Riedel explained that he is the one usually advocating for consistency and to go by the rules, however, in this case, there is a CUP process for this situation. He stated that, as Planning Director Darling indicated, when this Code was written it was because there are cases where it may be reasonable for a person to request something outside of the code, but within the realm of the CUP and that process should be easier than a variance process. He stated that in some respects, the City should expect that people would apply for the CUP. He stated that he is on the fence because of Commissioner Gault’s explanation about the recent case, but does feel the prior request was different, even though both requests were due to the size of dogs. Commissioner Gault stated that when there are other ways to address a situation, he thinks they should be applied as opposed to coming and having the Commission recommend approval when it is not really needed. He reiterated that there are a number of other ways that this would be resolved. Commissioner Riedel stated that he did not disagree with this point, except for the characterization of CUP. He gave the example of CUPs that have been granted for accessory space exceeding 1,200 square feet. He stated that in that situation, the applicant did not need a justification for wanting more accessory space. He stated that a CUP was put into place merely so if someone wants it, it will not be automatically granted, but is subject to review. He stated that he feels what Commissioner Gault has been describing was more along the lines of a variance, and a CUP is something that should be considered more favorably from the start, by the Commission. Chair Maddy asked if there was a way to put conditions in the Code on this in order to make it more clear cut and consistent. Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission could do that and explained that a CUP is an allowed use in any zoning district where that particular regulation would apply, subject to conditions, either measurable or subject to allow some discretion. She stated that the Commission can make a recommendation on whether the specific conditions listed have been met and the subjective ones that are allowed for all CUPs. She clarified that in this situation this is allowed by CUP so there would be no need to ask for a variance. Commissioner Eggenberger asked what would happen when the dogs pass away, for example, would they have to take the fence down, since is a CUP. Planning Director Darling stated that they would not have to take down the fence and it would be permanent. Commissioner Gault stated that he believes the Commission was correct in their denial of the Country Club Lane request and believes that this is essentially the same thing, just in a different location. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 2021 Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Eggenberger explained that he was struggling with whether this is enough of a difference between the one the Commission recommended denial on and this application. Chair Maddy stated that he sees a large difference in the two requests. One was for a 6-foot opaque fence along Smithtown Road and this request is for a 5-foot chain link fence in the backyard on a quiet lake. Commissioner Eggenberger noted that the front portion of the fence is not chain link. Planning Technician Notermann stated that portion of the fence does not require a CUP. She stated that portion of the 5 foot board on board fence is allowable in that location and pointed to the areas on the exhibit where the extra regulations applied. Commissioner Riedel clarified that there are different height requirements for the front and back yard. Eggenberger moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of the CUP request or a fence height of not greater than five feet at 4865 Ferncroft Drive, with the conditions as discussed; to require the applicant to acquire all necessary permits for construction of the fence; and that the applicant be required to comply with the staff recommend regarding how to address the existing boulder wall that crosses through the drainage and utility easement. Motion passed 5/0. Planning Technician Notermann stated that this should appear before the Council on July 26, 2021. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Subdivision Applicant: Todd Cebulla Location: 19210 Waterford Place and 5520 Vine Hill Road Planning Technician Notermann stated that this request is for a lot line adjustment. She noted that there are single family homes located on each parcel which would remain after the lot line adjustment. She stated that the applicant owns both parcels. He is asking for land to be taken from the northern lot and added to the southerly parcel. After working with staff, the applicant has agreed to submit new plans that reflect a new parcel size for the 5520 Vine Hill Road parcel in order for it to be at least 20,000 square feet. She stated that the revised survey would have to be submitted prior to the City Council meeting on July 26, 2021. Staff recommends approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report, including the adjustment to 5520 Vine Hill Road to be at least 20,000 square feet. Planning Director Darling noted that just prior to the meeting, the applicant was able to give staff an estimated layout showing the revision for both lots to meet the requirements. Todd Cebulla, 19210 Waterford Place, expressed his appreciation to the Planning Department and explained that he feels this is pretty straight forward and they plan to maintain the minimum lot sizes and provide the required easements. He stated that they are looking to open up their backyard because the home is sort of jammed against the tree line. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 2021 Page 6 of 8 Huskins moved, Gault seconded, recommending approval of the Minor Subdivision, for a lot line adjustment at 19210 Waterford Place and 5520 Vine Hill Road, subject to the three conditions included in the staff report. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy stated that this item would appear before the Council on July 26, 2021. B. Variance to Side Yard Setback Applicant: Kimberly Poe Location: 23320 Park Street Planning Technician Notermann stated that this request is for a variance to a side yard setback at 23320 Park Street. She noted that the existing home was constructed in 1924 and is located as close as six feet from the west side property line. She stated that because there is a required 10 foot setback, the house is considered to be a legally non-conforming structure. The applicant would like to construct an addition onto the existing home that will be 7.2 feet from the side property line. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested. Commissioner Eggenberger noted that the letter from Ms. Commers expressed concern about possible erosion and asked if the permits would cover that concern. Planning Technician Notermann stated that the concerns about drainage and slope would be addressed with the building permit applications. Commissioner Huskins noted that the construction will take place on the left side of the home and Ms. Commers is located on the right side of home. Kimberly Poe, 23320 Park Street, explained that Ms. Commers was confused about where the addition would be going and was concerned about the steep slope around the tree line which may create erosion into her back yard. She noted that when she built her two car garage last year she was required to have a surface water management plan and all of the roof water is gathered into what used to be a summer kitchen for the apple orchard that used to be there. The addition is 150 square feet, plus the open porch across the front just to tie it all together. She explained that maintaining the look of the home is very important to her. Commissioner Riedel noted that he agrees that the construction will be happening on the opposite side of Ms. Commers, but there may still need to be some other types of stormwater management put into place, such as a silt fence. Chair Maddy opened the meeting to public testimony on this item at 7:59 p.m. There was no public comment. Gault moved, Huskins seconded, to recommend approval of the variance request to the side yard setback at 23320 Park Street, subject to the condition that the applicant be required to acquire all necessary permits prior to construction. Motion passed 5/0. Planning Director Darling stated that this will be on the Council agenda for July 26, 2021. A resident spoke from the floor explaining that he was at the meeting because of a letter he received about an easement on his property. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 2021 Page 7 of 8 Planning Director Darling stated public comment on items not on the agenda could happen as part of Matters from the Floor and gave the Commission to option to re-open that portion of the meeting in order to hear his comments. Chair Maddy re-opened Matters from the Floor. Mr. Ayman Abdelsamie, 5960 Grant Street, explained that his home was built in 1928 and he has been doing some remodeling and fixing it up. He stated that he feels his situation is very close to what was discussed in the prior agenda item. He explained that there is an easement on the property on his driveway which he was told has been there forever. He stated that the City bought the lot next to his home and they tore down the house in order to use some of the property for drainage. He stated that he is hoping that the City could release the easement on his property so he could have a normally shaped lot. He stated that he would just ask that the City allow this situation to be cleaned up and taken care of so he can have access to his property and have a normally shaped lot. Chair Maddy stated that the Commission cannot take action tonight because they have no information on this topic nor was in included on the agenda. Planning Director Darling explained that it is most likely the Public Works and Engineering Departments that will weigh in on whether or not this area can be vacated. The Commission discussed the easement location, reason, and the hardship that it causes to the property owner. 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Sign Ordinance Amendments Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-Wide Planning Director Darling gave a brief overview of past Commission discussions surrounding amendments to the Sign Ordinance. The Commission discussed the revised Sign Ordinance including; signage in public right-of-way; limitations on the clear view triangle at corners and how it is measured; owner/occupant signs; public lands and parks; signs located within 5 feet of the property line and exceptions; referencing the State statute; public/traffic signs; flags; and signs in windows being readable only from inside the buildings. Planning Director Darling noted that she can correct language so it reflects exactly what the changes that have been discussed, such as correcting typographical errors but noted that she is nervous about making any changes to sections that were not part of the public hearing. She stated that perhaps she can write in the changes being discussed in her log and incorporate them into the next housekeeping change that the Planning Commission tackles. . Gault moved, Eggenberger seconded to recommend approval of the text amendments for the Sign Ordinance, with the minor edits as discussed during the meeting. Motion passed 5/0. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6, 2021 Page 8 of 8 Council Liaison Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s recent meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). Planning Director Darling gave a brief overview of one of the discussion topics at the meeting regarding backyard chickens and noted that the item may be coming back to the Commission for further discussion. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated that for the next Planning Commission meeting there will be a variance request and may also be reviewing changes to the Comprehensive Plan that the consultant has put together. 8. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Gault seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 6, 2021, at 8:46 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 3, BOULDER BRIDGE, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown. 2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey. 3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property. 4.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon. 5.Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of the building. 6.Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding with construction. 7.Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. 8.While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we are not as familiar with your proposed plans as you, your architect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location of the improvements and proposed yard grades carefully to verify that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local codes and minimum requirements as the local building and zoning officials in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the proposed improvements and obtain their approvals before beginning construction or planning improvements to the property. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES: BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN If necessary, vehicles, that have mud on their wheels, shall be cleaned before exiting Install silt fence/bio roll around the perimeter of the construction area. the site in the rock entrance areas Sediment control measures must remain in place until final stabilization has been Moisture shall be applied to disturbed areas to control dust as needed. established and then shall be removed. Sediment controls may be removed to accommodate short term construction activity but must be replaced before the nextPortable toilet facilities shall be placed on site for use by workers and shall be rain.properly maintained. Contractor shall install inlet protection on all existing storm sewer inlets inIf it becomes necessary to pump the excavation during construction, pump discharge accordance with the city standard details. Inlet protection shall also be provided onshall be into the stockpile areas so that the double silt fence around these areas can all proposed storm sewer inlets immediately following construction of the inlet.filter the water before it leaves the site. Inlet protection must be installed in a manner that will not impound water for Temporary erosion control shall be installed no later than 14 days after the site is extended periods of time or in a manner that presents a hazard to vehicular or first disturbed and shall consist of broadcast seeding with Minnesota Department of pedestrian traffic. Transportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/acre followed by covering with spray DURING CONSTRUCTION:mulch. When dirt stockpiles have been created, a double row of silt fence shall be placed to Erosion control measures shown on the erosion control plan are the absolute prevent escape of sediment laden runoff and if the piles or other disturbed areas are minimum. The contractor shall install temporary earth dikes, sediment traps or to remain in place for more than 14 days, they shall be seeded with Minnesota basins and additional silt fencing as deemed necessary to control erosion. Department of Transportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/acre followed by SITE WORK COMPLETION: covering with spray mulch. A dumpster shall be placed on the site for prompt disposal of construction debris. City of Shorewood requirements to insure that These dumpsters shall be serviced regularly to prevent overflowing and blowing grading was properly done. onto adjacent properties. Disposal of solid wastes from the site shall in accordance B When any remedial grading has been completed, sod or seeding shall be completed with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. including any erosion control blankets for steep areas. o A separate container shall be placed for disposal of hazardous waste. Hazardous u When turf is established, silt fence and inlet protection and other erosion control wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with MPCA requirements. l devices shall be disposed of and adjacent streets, alleys and walks shall be cleaned d Concrete truck washout shall be in the plastic lined ditch and dispose of washings as as needed to deliver a site that is erosion resistant and clean. e solid waste. r Contractor shall maintain positive drainage of a minimum 2% slope away from Sediment control devices shall be regularly inspected and after major rainfall events proposed building. and shall be cleaned and repaired as necessary to provide downstream protection. B Streets and other public ways shall be inspected daily and if litter or soils has been r i deposited it shall promptly be removed. d g e LEGEND D r i v e NOT COUNTED IN HARDCOVERNOT COUNTED IN HARDCOVER Cantilevers 77 Sq. Ft.Cantilevers 64 Sq. Ft. Water in pool area 782 Sq. Ft.Water in pool area 782 Sq. Ft. EXISTING HARDCOVERPROPOSED HARDCOVER House 4,247 Sq. Ft.House 4,987 Sq. Ft. Existing Decks 186 Sq. Ft.Existing Decks 171 Sq. Ft. Paver Drive 2,102 Sq. Ft.Paver Drive 2,102 Sq. Ft. Pavers Other 608 Sq. Ft.Pavers Other 521 Sq. Ft. Shed 254 Sq. Ft.Shed 254 Sq. Ft. Concrete Surfaces 1,358 Sq. Ft.Concrete Surfaces 1,358 Sq. Ft. Stone Areas 258 Sq. Ft.Stone Areas 258 Sq. Ft. Ret. Walls 247 Sq. Ft.Ret. Walls 250 Sq. Ft. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 9,260 Sq. Ft.TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 9,901 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 36,321 Sq. Ft.AREA OF LOT 36,321 Sq. Ft. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 25.5%PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 27.2% DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE SHEET SIZE CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLE MAY 4, 2021 DATE SURVEYED: SURVEYED BY SHEET NO. ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO. Joshua S. Rinke DRAWING NUMBER 17917 Highway 7 ## 52716 SCALE - 1" = 20' MAY 25, 2021 DATE DRAFTED: Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 S1 LICENSE NO. 02040 Phone (952) 474-7964 MAY 25, 2021 Web: www.advsur.com DATE SHEET 1 OF 1 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 FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: August 3, 2021 RE: Discussion of Text Amendments for Urban Farm Animals Background In June, a resident came to Matters from the Floor and asked that the City review and amend the City’s regulations regarding the required consent of a portion of the neighbors in order to have chickens or to add a variance process. The Council asked staff to provide a review the city’s regulations and background on what other cities allow. When the information was presented, Council asked staff to draft ordinance amendments for their review. They reviewed the proposed amendments at a meeting on July 26, 2021. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently made a decision on an unrelated case that appears to require cities to follow the same process for ordinance amendments on codes that are related or dependent on zoning regulations as actual zoning amendments. As a result, the City Council forwarded the potential amendments to the Planning Commission to ask for their review and to hold a public hearing. In advance of the public hearing, staff included the amendments on this agenda for discussion purposes. Proposed Ordinance Amendments 1. Remove the requirement that 75 percent of neighbors within 150 feet must consent to the request. 2. Add a regulation that the animal shelter must be located closer to the animal owner’s home that to a home on an abutting property. 3. Limit the ownership of urban farm animals to properties with single-family dwellings. 4. Require a renewal of the permit after five years. 5. Prohibit slaughtering. The attached ordinance amendment reflects all the above items. Staff also added a requirement for screening because the neighbors will no longer be consulted on the appropriate fencing. Staff proposed requiring screening when the enclosure is located within 25 feet of a property line. Staff recommended privacy fencing, but the Planning Commission may recommend otherwise. Page 2 Staff also propose several housekeeping issues to correct code references, incomplete regulations and similar. Timeframe for permit renewal: Staff recommends five years for the renewal period for a few reasons: 1. Five years allows the animals to mature and for most fowl to stop laying eggs. 2. The cost of an urban farm animal permit is $50 and dog licenses are $10 for each dog, with multiple animal licenses at $25 initially and $10 for renewals plus individual dog licenses. Dog tags and multiple dog licenses must be renewed every year, but no inspections are required. ATTACHMENTS: Council memos for June 28 and July 26, 2021 Current Section 705 of City Code (Farm and Other Animals) Proposed Ordinance #2 MEETING TYPE Worksession City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Discussion Meeting Date: November 23, 2020 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: NAC Response Letter to Metropolitan Council Strikeout/Underscore Version of Land Use Chapter Final Draft Version of Land Use Chapter A copy of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan sent to the Metropolitan Council last summer is available on the City’s website Background: The City’s consultants have finalized the revisions necessary to resubmit the Plan to the Metropolitan Council. For most of the revisions, the changes are minor; and staff did not include a full copy of the plan for your review this evening. The most significant changes to the Comprehensive Plan were made to the land use chapter, with those changes repeated in the housing chapter. Due to the length of the Chapters and the amount of repetition, staff did not include the housing chapter language in your packet this evening. The significant changes to the land use chapter include amending the land use map and the text in the following areas per the previous Council direction:  19905 State Highway 7: A paragraph was added within the text of the land use chapter indicating that this site is a mixed-use site. (P. 115 of the strikeout/underscore version of the land use chapter)  23400, 23425 and 23445 Smithtown Road were changed from Commercial to High Density Residential  Changes to the tables throughout the chapter to be consistent with the land use map. The Metropolitan Council’s direction was to add enough locations to produce 155 dwelling units and 48 units of affordable housing. Both need to be at a density of 5 units per acre or greater. Using the Metropolitan Council’s calculations, these sites, plus other properties classified for a density over five units to the acre would produce 95 of the required dwellings including 30 of the required 48 affordable housing units. In a meeting held between the Mayor, City Staff and the Metropolitan Council staff and appoint representative, the Met Council staff also told the City that the city could be complete but not compliant in this regard. However, staff could also include the Shopping Center at Hwys 41 and 7 as a mixed-use site, which would bring the numbers even closer to meeting the requirements. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. S:\\Planning\\Comprehensive Plan\\Comp Plan 2019\\Council Action\\20 11 23 Worksession Cover.docx Page 2 Staff would like direction on the following: 1. Are the changes that were directed by Council adequate as shown on the map? Or should staff include the shopping center property at Hwys 41 and 7 as mixed use to approach the original direction of the Metropolitan Council? 2. Level of review with the public: The changes to the land use map are not required to be reviewed again by the public. However, they are substantial changes and staff recommends allowing some public notice and public comment, even if it is a generic notice regarding the review of the final document changes. Notice also could include the City of Excelsior, residents within 500 feet of the affected properties, etc. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2020 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, Siakel, and Sundberg; City Administrator Lerud; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; City Engineer Budde, and Nate Sparks, Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) Absent: None B. Review and Adopt Agenda Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0. 2. Comprehensive Plan Discussion Planning Director Darling explained that the City’s consultants have finalized the revisions needed in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She stated that most of the changes are relatively minor. She stated that staff wanted to have one more informal meeting to discuss the more substantive changes needed in the Land Use map. She stated that the Met Council had sent back the Comprehensive Plan to the City stating that there needed to be more opportunities to produce one hundred fifty-five more dwelling units including more opportunities to provide forty-eight more units of affordable housing. She noted that the City already held public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan, however there will be changes made to the Land Use map, which infers some property rights. She stated that she feels it may be appropriate to notify property owners within five hundred feet of the properties proposed as changes and staff will also meet individually with the property owners. She noted that staff is looking for direction from Council on whether they would like them to hold a full public hearing at the Planning Commission or if bringing the changes to the December 14, 2020 Council meeting would be adequate. Nate Sparks, NAC, gave an overview of the information included in the Comprehensive Plan and explained how the City made the calculations. He gave a brief explanation of the staging plan and noted the possibility of certain areas being designated as mixed use in order to come up to the numbers determined by the Met Council. He stated that some of these areas could be included but the likelihood of them actually being developed is questionable because some of them are fairly successful business areas where the economic incentive for this is not necessarily present. He reviewed the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan surrounding affordable housing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Councilmember Johnson noted that he is inclined to include parcels seven and forty-one as mixed use. He stated that he would support taking out the Shorewood Yacht Club property as well as the ones across Smithtown. Planning Director Darling noted that the parcel shown is the dredging company. Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks it makes the most sense to put the most density along corridors. She asked about the businesses off of Vine Hill Road and asked if that was considered mixed use. Councilmember Johnson stated that he believes that this is mixed use and would consider from Valvoline to Holiday as potential mixed use. Mayor Zerby stated that he would go further to the self-storage facilities. The Council discussed the issues related to access for the dredging company. Councilmember Johnson stated that he would like to clear up the border issues with Excelsior and then revisit this topic. Councilmember Labadie stated that she would agree with Councilmember Johnson and asked Planning Director Darling for her opinion. Planning Director Darling stated that the reason the dredging company was originally included was because the property owner is interested in redeveloping it for residential uses and have been softly marketing the property. Councilmember Labadie asked if that would cause issues with the neighboring property that is divided between two cities. Planning Director Darling explained that the complication would be more of a social complication rather than a land use complication. Mayor Zerby noted that this is a long-range plan and not for the next year or two. He stated that he thinks this is a City-wide topic and deserves public input. He stated that he would propose a public hearing at the Planning Commission and invite residents to give their input. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she agreed and asked if the resident comments would be shared with the Met Council. Planning Director Darling stated that her understanding is that if it is a public meeting, the comments have to be shared with Met Council. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she thinks it would be good for the Met Council to get the public comments. Councilmember Siakel stated that she disagreed about holding a public hearing, because this has already been provided to the public and there has not been much feedback surrounding redevelopment. She stated that the City rarely has anybody give feedback and the Comprehensive Plan is usually used as a reference to prevent change or as opposition to a CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Page 3 of 4 development. She stated that she thinks a public hearing at the Planning Commission will create more work for staff with the ultimate result being the same as if they had not held the public hearing. She stated that she is comfortable moving forward at a Council meeting. Mayor Zerby stated that he disagreed because the information being reviewed tonight is new and the public has not seen this yet. Councilmember Siakel reiterated that she does not think the results will be any different. Councilmember Labadie stated that she agreed with both Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Siakel. She stated that she does not think the result will be any different, but feels the right thing to do is to make the process transparent and give people the opportunity to give feedback. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she does not see any harm in proceeding with a public hearing. Councilmember Johnson suggested that Planning Director Darling put a blurb in the newsletter. He asked if the Council wants to consider adding the adjacent parcels along the Highway 7 corridor and noted that including these properties may get the City where they need to be according to the Met Council. Mayor Zerby stated that he does not like the phrase “need to be” and noted that the City has spoken with the Met Council who indicated that it would be all right if the City submitted a proposal that did not meet all of their requirements. He stated that he thinks the numbers are a bit arbitrary and thinks the City does not need to strive to get where it “needs to be”, but just to do the right thing. Councilmember Johnson stated that when he drives by that area, he thinks it would be a great place for a restaurant with some apartments above. Mayor Zerby stated that he would agree, but feels the intersections need to be examined more thoroughly. Planning Director Darling asked if the Council would like staff to add a ‘Mixed Use’ category and include them on the map or just continue keeping them in the text of the document. Mr. Sparks stated that if the City created something that allowed mixed use in commercial areas, it would meet what the Met Council says the parameters are for the City. He stated that they would also define what the City considers mixed use and could potentially reject sites that don’t work because of transportation or access issues. He noted that there are both vertical and horizontal options for mixed use and gave examples of horizontal mixed-use projects in the City of Mound. Councilmember Johnson stated that he would support that idea. Mayor Zerby stated that he likes the idea of adding a percentage to the amount of commercial and residential allowed as suggested by Mr. Sparks. Councilmember Johnson asked if there was a conclusion around including the dredging company. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 23, 2020 Page 4 of 4 There was Consensus from the Council to include the dredging company. Planning Director Darling asked if the Council was comfortable including the Garden Patch site and the small storage building. There was Consensus of the Council to include those locations. 3. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of November 23, 2020, at 6:36 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. __________________________________________________________________ 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council FROM: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner DATE: July 29, 2021 RE: Shorewood - 2040 Comprehensive Plan BACKGROUND Based on Metropolitan Council comments, a revised version of the Land Use Plan chapter of the draft plan was created for review. The City Council reviewed the revisions at the November 23, 2020 work session. Based on the discussion at the work session, some minor modifications were made to meet the remaining requirements from the Metropolitan Council. PLAN CHANGES The Land Use Plan was slightly adjusted to include specific parcels that are identified for potential future development and the minimum number of housing units that can be provided (Pages 122-123). Some of the parcels are commercial in nature being reclassified as residential. Others are residential but have the land area and capacity for new development. These properties provide for new units that can be used to come close to meeting the required forecasts. Additionally, there was a new land use designation added to the plan, called “Commercial-Mixed Use.” This designation allows for the potential introduction of housing units to certain specified commercial areas. This allowed for the plan to provide the number of units and density required by the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council requested that the City provide 155 new units of housing at 5 units per acre. The plan now meets these standards. The Metropolitan Council also requested that the City provide 48 units at a minimum of 8 units per acre to qualify as meeting the affordable housing requirements. With the provided areas of high density and mixed use, the plan now meets this standard. RESPONSE TO MET COUNCIL The following is a summary of stated “required information” (necessary in order to deem the Plan complete) as well as a City response which describes the changes which have been made to the updated version of the Comprehensive Plan or provides related comments. WASTEWATER The City must include a copy or copies of intercommunity service agreements entered into with an adjoining community, or language that confirms the Council’s understanding that the communities reimburse each other for the municipal wastewater charges that each will occur by receiving flow from the adjacent community; including a map of areas covered by the agreement. Response. The agreements will be attached as Appendix G to the plan. The plan will reference reimbursement policies between the cities. TRANSPORTATION Transit. The Plan must be revised to include a full description of Shorewood’s Transit Market Areas (TMA), which include both TMA 4 and TMA 5, which includes the portion of the City west of Eureka Road. Response. The Transportation Section is updated to include references to all Transit Market Areas in the City on page 180. Advisory Comment The Plan should include reference to Metro Mobility or Transit Link in the transit section. Both are available in Shorewood, and the document should directly mention these dial-a-ride services. Response. The two dial-a-ride services mentioned above have been referenced in the Transit section of the Plan on page 180. Bicycling and Walking. The Tier 1 and 2 Regional Bicycle and Transportation Network (RBTN) corridors / alignments must be mapped in the Plan. The RBTN could be added to the local park and trail system map or provided in a separate map identifying the. The RBTN GIS file can be located here: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-trans-regional-bike-trans-netwrk. 2 Response. The proper Regional Bicycle and Transportation Network corridors/alignments are illustrated on the updated Regional Parks and Trails map on page 46. PARKS The Plan must describe, map and label the Lake Independence Extension Regional Trail Search Corridor. A description of the Lake Independence Extension Regional Trail Search Corridor is available on page 34 of Shorewood’s 2015 System Statement, and available online at: https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/System- Statements/System-Statements/02395877_Shorewood_2015SS.aspx. A map of the Regional Parks System in the City, including the regional trail search corridor, appears on page 36 of Shorewood’s System Statement. City Response. The Regional Parks System map (prepared by the Metropolitan Council) which includes the Lake Independence Extension Regional Trail Search Corridor has been added to the Plan as a new map which illustrates regional Parks and trails in both the City of Shorewood and surrounding areas on page 46. The Plan must also include a capital improvement program for parks and open space facilities as part of the implementation section. City Response. The City’s capital improvement program, which includes specific programs for parks and open space has been attached to the Plan as Appendix C. FORECASTS The Land Use Chapter must include an analysis specifying what quantities of land will be developed over the next two decades, and at what densities. While the Plan includes a map of vacant and undeveloped land supply, estimated at 202 acres, there is not enough information in the Plan to determine that the land supply accommodates the growth forecast (155 additional households during 2018-2040). A housing capacity and staging table needs to be added to the Plan. City Response. The staging plan is on Page 123 depicting the number of units provided. Pages 122-123 depict the specific parcels with the future units associated. The Council requires some measure of employment-bearing land use intensity for commercial and industrial land uses to be added to the Plan. Acceptable measurements of intensity include Floor Area Ratio (FAR), or building footprint coverage, or jobs per acre, or setback and height restrictions. Any of these would meet the requirement of measuring of employment-bearing land use intensity. 3 City Response. The City is not increasing the commercial and industrial properties within the plan, as the City is currently meeting the employment forecasts. Advisory Comments Council staff find that recent employment growth and population growth have significantly exceeded what was expected in the current decade. The City can request that the employment numbers be increased with the Plan update. Council staff recommend adding +200, +300, and +400 population respectively to each of the 2020, 2030, and 2040 forecasts. The households number can remain as is. Further, we recommend resetting the employment forecast to 1,600 jobs for each of the future forecast years; Shorewood reached 1,600 jobs in 2018. Shorewood Census Previous Council Estimates Council staff Forecasts recommendation 2010 2020 2030 2040 2018 2020 2030 2040 Population 7307 7400 7500 7600 7693 7600 7800 8000 Households 2658 2800 2910 3000 2845 2800 2910 3000 Employment 1113 1300 1340 1400 1600 1600 1600 1600 Response. The City accepts the revised forecasts and uses these assumptions in the revised version of the Land Use Plan. LAND USE Community Designation. The Plan must include a map acknowledging the City’s regional Community Designation as Suburban. The Plan does acknowledge the overall density expectations for Suburban Communities at five units per acre, but the Community Designation Map is not included. The map is available on the City’s Community Page of the Local Planning Handbook. Response. The Community Designation map has been added to the Plan on page 111. Existing Land Use. The Existing Land Use table states 2016 land uses and the Existing Land Use map states 2017 land uses. This information must be consistent. 4 Response. The Existing Land Use table has been modified to be convey 2017 information such that the table and map are consistent and is included on page 127. Right-of-way is included on the table and not in the map legend. This information must be represented consistently. Response. Right-of-way has been added to the legends on both the Existing Land Use map and the Land Use Plan on pages 116-117. Future Land Use Land use categories must include types of allowed uses and include a description of allowable housing types such as single family, detached, duplexes, townhomes, etc. Response. The land use categories in the previously submitted version of the Plan and the revised Plan both reference types of allowable uses and housing types. Further clarification of this has been added on pages 118-120. The Plan must address missing information or resolve inconsistencies within the Plan regarding the density ranges for planned land uses. Response. This has been included in the revised Land Use Plan. There are no longer inconsistencies. It may be found on pages 118-120 The Plan should provide a table of identified redevelopment or new development areas that includes future land uses, acreages, density ranges, and total residential units in 10-year increments. o The narrative describes areas that could be developed for residential or a mix of uses and also need to identify a timeframe. o The narrative describes areas for potential high-density residential development and needs to assign a timeframe and depict these areas on a map. Response. A table with staging has been added to the revised Land Use Plan on page 123. For mixed used districts, the Plan must include estimates of the percentage of land that would be used as residential. 5 o These percentages should reflect the Plan’s flexibility in defining mixed use districts as either vertical mixed use (e.g., 100% residential with integrated non-residential uses) or some combination of a horizontal mix of uses (e.g., 50% of parcels developed as residential). o For example, the narrative describes two areas that could be developed with a mix of uses on page 114. The section should include the share and density ranges for those uses. Response. The description of the Commercial Mixed Use designation can be found on page 120. Advisory Comment Staff encourages the City to develop a table that simplifies and clarifies the future land use analysis and policy, and one that would fulfill the Plan requirements. Information could be added to the Existing and Proposed Land Uses table on page 120. These elements include the following: o Guiding land use o Acreage anticipated to develop o % of land anticipated to develop as residential o Timeframe (e.g., 2021-2030) Response. A revised land use table is included with a diagram showing parcels included for meeting the forecasts and is on pages 122-123. Density Calculations More information is needed to determine the average net residential density for the City. The Plan must Identify where forecasted residential growth will happen on the Future Land Use Map or a separate map showing expected new development and re-developed areas and focusing on areas of change. Show which planned land uses have changed from the City’s previously approved plan and where new land uses (change or development intensity) are planned/expected. This information must match the future land use table recommended above. Response. This has been included in the revised Land Use Plan. The City is delivering new development at the required levels (over 5 units per acre) as demonstrated on page 123. Staged Development and Redevelopment A staging table noting the number of acres potentially available for development within each 10-year planning period must be included in order to clarify the City’s 6 ability to meet the minimum required density for a Suburban Community of five units per acre. Response. A staging plan is included on page 123. Identify potential local infrastructure impacts for each 10-year increment. Response. The plan has been revised to account for this on page 169. Demonstrate that the City is capable of providing services and facilities that accommodate its planned growth in the included a capital improvement plan or similar document. Response. The capital improvement plan is attached as Appendix C. The staging plan or likely development phasing must be consistent with the volume of anticipated sewer flow identified in the City’s Local Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Response. This is revised in the Sewer Plan on page 194. HOUSING Existing Housing Need Plans must provide the number of existing housing units that are affordable within each of the three bands of affordability (less than 30% Area Median Income (AMI), 31-50% AMI, and 51-80% AMI). Response. The number of housing units for the three bands of affordability have been added to the Housing Plan on page 137. Plans must state the number of publicly subsidized or income-restricted housing units available within the City, even if that number is zero. Response. The number of publicly subsidized or income-restricted housing units available within the City, has been added to the Housing Plan on page 136. Plans must provide the number of existing households that are housing cost burdened within each of the three bands of affordability. Response. The number of existing households that are housing cost burdened within each of the three bands of affordability have been indicated in the Housing Plan on page 136. 7 Maintenance and senior housing options have been identified as existing housing needs. Once the missing data is provided, the Plan should consider if they reveal any additional existing housing needs. Once existing housing needs are clearly stated, a description of all widely recognized tools Shorewood would consider using to address those needs, and in what circumstances, is required for the Plan to be complete. Response. Within the Housing Plan, the description of housing tools has expanded in a manner similar to the example provided by the Metropolitan Council on pages 140-145. Projected Housing Need Land guided to address Shorewood’s 2021-2030 allocation of affordable housing is not sufficiently described for review. A staging table noting the number of acres available or likely to develop within the Medium Density Residential and the High Density Residential land uses in the 2021 decade is necessary to determine if sufficient land is guided to address Shorewood’s allocation. Response. As explained on page 137, the City is providing the affordable housing units in a manner consistent with regional policy. Implementation Plan The Plan must describe and provide policy direction on what available housing tools it is likely or unlikely to use with respect to identified housing needs. As a reminder, housing needs include those identified through the existing housing assessment narrative and the affordable units allocated between 2021 and 2030. This includes tools that are not locally controlled but require local support, application or administration to be successfully used. Tools mentioned by the Plan that don’t adequately describe the circumstances of their use include: o Tax Increment Financing o Hennepin County’s Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF) o Hennepin County HOME funds Referring to the Local Planning Handbook’s list of recognized housing tools does not meet the requirement to describe and consider available housing tools to meet identified housing needs. As a reminder, housing needs include those identified through the existing housing assessment narrative and the affordable units allocated between 2021 and 2030. Tools not mentioned in the Plan include: o Tax Abatement o Housing bonds 8 o Fair Housing Policy o Participation in housing-related organizations, partnerships, and initiatives (basically committing to ongoing education about housing tools available to meet housing needs) o City support or direct application to specific resources within the Consolidated RFP put out by Minnesota Housing o Preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, including partnership with Homes Within Reach to create land trust homes in Shorewood, local 4d tax incentives, Housing Improvement Areas, and promoting/supporting/applying for resources to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing such as MN Housing, Greater Minnesota Housing Fund’s NOAH Impact Fund, and others. Staff has provided an example of another community’s housing implementation table that meets the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and is consistent with Council housing policy, in case it is helpful. Response. As previously indicated, a description of housing tools is provided in the Housing Plan. The description is presented in a manner similar to that provided by the Metropolitan Council on pages 140-145. Advisory Comment Both pages 74 and 137 include policy direction to encourage owner-occupied housing. This policy could be considered exclusionary. Council staff encourage the City to consult with their attorney to consider if this statement leaves the City vulnerable to a Fair Housing complaint under the Fair Housing Act. Response. These comments were removed. WATER SUPPLY The City must attach the final local water supply plan template, as submitted to DNR, as an attachment to the Plan so that all components of the Plan are accessible together. Response. The plan has been attached as Appendix E. COMMUNITY WATEWATER AND SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS The Plan indicates that there are four individual SSTS and no public or privately- owned Community Wastewater Treatment Systems in operation in the City. Text on page 52 of the Plan states that SSTS locations “are shown on the map on the following page” of the document, however a map depicting the locations of operating 9 SSTS in the City was not found in the Plan. The Plan needs to be revised to contain the referenced map. Response. The ISTS map has been inserted into the Plan on page 56. The Hennepin County Plan indicates that the City has delegated the responsibility of permitting, inspection, maintenance management, and compliance enforcement of remaining SSTS in the City in accordance with Hennepin County Ordinance 19. The Plan is silent on this issue and needs to have text added to the Plan to either confirm that the County actively oversees the City’s SSTS program, or detail how the City oversees its SSTS maintenance management program. Response. This has been included on page 55. AGGREGATE RESOURCES The Plan is silent on the presence of aggregate resources in the City. The Council’s aggregate resources inventory information contained in Minnesota Geological Survey Information Circular 46 indicates there are no known viable aggregate resource deposits available for extraction within the City. The Plan needs to be revised to include this information. Response. Plan has been revised to state that there are no known viable aggregate resource deposits available for extraction within the City on page 18. IMPLEMENTATION Define a timeline as to when actions will be taken to implement each required element of the Plan. Response. This has been included beginning on page 233. The Plan must include a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for transportation, sewers, parks, water supply, and open space facilities. Specify the timing and sequence of major local public investments. Response. The City’s capital improvement program, which includes specific programs for parks and open space has been attached to the Plan as Appendix C. The CIP must align with development staging identified in other parts of the Plan and include budgets and expenditure schedules. 10 Response. This has been included as Appendix C. Include your local zoning map and zoning category descriptions. Identify what changes are needed to ensure zoning is not in conflict with the new land use plan and consistent with regional system plans and policies. Response. The City’s zoning map and zoning district descriptions have been inserted into the Plan, followed by the zoning map. This is found on pages 22- 26. REQUESTED ACTION City Officials need to review the plan changes and direct Staff to resubmit the plan for final approval. 11