Loading...
09 07 2021 Planning Commission Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE MADDY (SEPT) ______ EGGENBERGER (DEC) _ _ GAULT (AUG) ______ RIEDEL (NOV) ______ HUSKINS (OCT) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON JOHNSON (JUL-DEC) ______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  August 3, 2021 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (This portion of the meeting allows members of the public the opportunity to bring up items that are not on the agenda. Each speaker has a maximum of three minutes to present their topic. Multiple speakers may not bring up the same points. No decisions would be made on the topic at the meeting except that the item may be referred to staff for more information or the City Council.) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) Urban Farm Animal Ordinance Amendments B) CUP for a fence Applicant: Alec Walsh Location: 5660 Minnetonka Drive 5. NEW BUSINESS A) Variance to side and rear yard setback Applicant: Wayne Hartmann Location: 27460 Maple Ridge Lane 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. REPORTS A) Council Meeting Report B) Draft Next Meeting Agenda 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2021 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Gault (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) and Huskins; Planning Director Darling; Planning Technician Notermann and, Council Liaison Johnson Absent: Commissioner Riedel 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Huskins noted that the Council Liaison needs to be changed from Councilmember Callies to Councilmember Johnson. Huskins moved, Eggenberger seconded, approving the agenda for August 3, 2021, as amended. Motion passed 3/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  July 6, 2020 Huskins moved, Eggenberger seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2021, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. Commissioner Gault arrived at the meeting. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, stated that he has lived in Shorewood for 40 years and would like to take this opportunity share twelve brief issues that a group of citizens have come up with that they feel have gotten out of hand in the City. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the group of citizens he mentioned was a formal group of citizens. Mr. Yelsey stated that it is a formal group that is in the process of forming and is called By the People and noted that there are around 1,200 members from the City. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if there was a way to see who the members of the group are or see a list of officers. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3, 2021 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Yelsey stated that they did not yet have a way to see a list of the members or the officers and noted that at this time, it will be kept private. He stated that they will be totally open with that information once they complete the formation process. Commissioner Eggenberger explained that the reason he was asking was that he would like to know where the comments are coming from. Mr. Yelsey stated that the Commission can just think of the comments coming from him right now. He stated that his background is as a planner for the Metropolitan Council and as a Corporate Human Resource Planner for Honeywell. He stated that as the Planning Commission makes plans for the City, he would ask that they: 1. Make sure they are getting resident input throughout the entire process. He stated that the City as never reached out to him in his 40 years as a resident to ask him what he needed or wanted in any reasonable, comprehensive way. 2. Offer accessibility for people with disabilities and two-way Zoom capabilities to make it easier for them to participate in meetings without having to come to City Hall. 3. Budget - There is currently no clear, transparent way that he, as a citizen, can find out how the City is doing with money and see what the intake outflow, and bonding. 4. Communication with residents of a clear picture of important things in the community. 5. Pesticides – Water quality is an issue in the City and the City is the biggest polluter and the largest source of contamination of water because they are putting pesticides in large quantities into Freeman Park and the fields. 6. Smithtown Ponds – Directly related to the Strawberry Lane project and noted that he loves the idea of trying to think through the entire western Shorewood water issues, but there is a high-water table which is a big challenge. He explained that he does not think there has been a good, coherent justification for the project, nor has there been a demonstration that two ponds of this kind will actually work. 7. Sign Ordinance – He feels that it is an awful non-democratic document. Signs are one of the inherent rights of residents of this country and is protected by the Constitution. He stated that citizens should have a right to any non-commercial sign they wish to place on their lawn as long as it won’t cause a problem or block a view. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he voted in support of a ten-foot setback in the sign ordinance because of the children who live in his neighborhood and play near the street. Chair Maddy stated that the Commission will not reargue the details of the sign ordinance, but if it comes back to the Commission, he invited Mr. Yelsey to come back and join the discussion. He stated that he would not like to spend time defending past decisions. Mr. Yelsey stated that the reason Chair Maddy does not want to defend past decisions is because he cannot. Commissioner Gault stated that Mr. Yelsey made a few points about lack of participation and noted that all of these items were open for public discussion at the time they were being considered by the Commission, via Zoom as well as in person. The Commission had nobody who came forward, including Mr. Yelsey, to express concerns. He stated that everyone in the City has access to the agenda for the Commission and Council meetings. He stated that the Commission has not cut anybody off, but what has happened is that people have chosen not to participate. Mr. Yelsey stated that he felt it was the responsibility of the City to be pro-active. If he is sitting in his living room, on his computer, looking at the City website, he cannot easily find the agenda and noted that the City documents are often 200+ pages long. He stated that he was not notified of the changes for the sign ordinance until about 10 days before hand and noted that the language was changed before it went to the Council. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3, 2021 Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Huskins stated that Mr. Yelsey claimed that non-commercial signage is restricted to the period of time just prior to the election and just after. He stated that is not his understanding of the Code. Mr. Yelsey stated that what was presented to the Council was different than what the Planning Commission saw and what was proposed in their meeting changed between that time and the Council meeting. Chair Maddy thanked Mr. Yelsey for his time and stated that the Commission will look into the items that he raised. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS – NONE 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Variance Applicant: Revision LLC Location: 28115 Boulder Bridge Drive Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request by Revision LLC for a variance to the rear yard setback at 28115 Boulder Bridge Drive to allow an addition to be constructed about 37 feet from the rear property line where 50 feet is required. The existing home was constructed in 1983 and was constructed about 30 feet from the rear property line. The applicants are proposing to add a sport court addition to the home. Staff is recommending approval subject to acquiring all necessary permits prior to construction. John Daley, Revision, LLC, explained that they have been working on the plans for about 6 months. He noted that their initial understanding was that there was a 30-foot setback but when they got further into the process found that Boulder Bridge had a separate PUD with a setback of 50 feet. He stated that the house is unique because it is legal non-conforming today and was also legal non-conforming back when it was constructed. He stated that all records have shown, thus far, that there was not a variance issued for the home. Planning Director Darling stated that she has not been able to find a variance for the home, but was able to find one for the screened porch. Mr. Daley explained that they were trying to expand behind the rear of the garage so it does not have any exposure to the front street and does not go as close to the property line as the house does today. He stated that the homeowners have worked closely with the neighborhood association who are also in favor of the request. Chair Maddy stated that the City received a letter from the Lindsey’s, but they did not reference the association. He asked if there was any correspondence from the Boulder Bridge homeowner’s association. Planning Director Darling stated that typically the City does not receive that type of correspondence. Mr. Daley stated that there is a letter, but he does not have a copy of it with him. Chair Maddy suggested that a copy of the letter be sent via e-mail to Planning Director Darling. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3, 2021 Page 4 of 9 Eggenberger moved, Gault seconded, to recommend approval of the Variance Request for 28115 Boulder Bridge Drive, subject to the applicant obtaining all necessary permits prior to construction. Motion passed 4/0. B. Urban Farm Animal Ordinance Amendment Discussion Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-Wide Planning Director Darling gave an overview of past request from a resident at a June 2021 City Council meeting requesting the City amend the regulations removing the required consent of a portion of the neighbors in order to have chickens or to consider adding a variance process. Council asked staff to provide a review of the City regulations and background information on what other cities allow. She stated that after this information was presented, the Council asked staff to draft ordinance amendments which were reviewed on July 26, 2021. She explained that the Minnesota Supreme Court recently made a decision on an unrelated case that requires cities to follow the same process for ordinance amendments on codes that are related or dependent on zoning regulations as actual zoning amendments. So, the Council has referred this matter to the Planning Commission for review and approval. She reviewed the proposed amendments and noted that a public hearing will be held at the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Eggenberger confirmed with Planning Director Darling that the cost for the permit would be $50 and after a five-year period would be another $50 to have the permit renewed. Commissioner Huskins asked for more detail on the stipulation of being 25 feet from the property line and asked if it would supersede the setback. Planning Director Darling stated that the way the current ordinance reads is that it has to be kept in the buildable yard area, which would be 10 feet from the side property lines, then it will have to be screened to the satisfaction of the neighbors. She stated that staff is proposing a change to add a few more criteria related to location. She stated that the required setbacks as listed in the Zoning Ordinance would still need to be met, but you also have to keep the shelter closer to the permit holders house than any of the adjacent residences and if it is closer than 25 feet to a property line, there would also have to be screening for the shelter and any enclosure area they may have. Chair Maddy suggested reviewing the proposed amendments section by section. He stated that his first question was why someone renting a property could not raise urban farm animals. Planning Director Darling clarified that this is saying that the owner of the urban farm animals must live in the dwelling on the property, not that they must own the dwelling. Chair Maddy asked if the word ‘enclosure’ could be added to 705.09 b, to help clarify things. Commissioner Gault stated that ‘confinement area’ was taken out of the next section and he would like to see that left in. Commissioner Eggenberger asked about the statement that says the fencing shall be a solid privacy fence. Planning Director Darling stated that if there is a board-on-board fence, the birds may be able to get through the gap. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3, 2021 Page 5 of 9 Commissioner Eggenberger asked if people could put up chicken wire fencing. Planning Director Darling stated that that people could use chicken wire fencing for the enclosure, but the solid privacy fencing would be for screening, not the enclosure. The Commission discussed screening requirements and where solid fencing is allowed in the City. Planning Director Darling explained that she was attempting to find a measurable standard rather than a subjective standard. Chair Maddy stated that people see their neighbor’s dogs running around the yard and asked why watching chickens or other urban farm animals would be any different. Commissioner Eggenberger suggested that the requirement for solid privacy fencing be removed. Chair Maddy stated that he wonders if the City is holding onto the 1950s version of the suburbs where everything looks the same with the thought that you do not want to look at your neighbor’s chicken coop and noted that he wasn’t sure how applicable it is right now. Commissioner Huskins stated that for the neighbor who doesn’t want to look it at, it would impose a burden on them and they didn’t bring the situation on themselves. Chair Maddy stated that if someone puts on an ugly addition, ugly furniture on their deck, or has an ugly dog running around the yard, there are not repercussions. He stated that he doesn’t understand why chickens would be treated so much differently. He asked if there was consensus that the current language was too restrictive. Commissioner Gault suggested that the language say that any urban farm animal enclosure must meet all zoning setback requirements. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it seems like the Commission is trying to make this the same as putting up a storage shed and suggested that there be a different set of rules. Commissioner Gault stated that this becomes more of an issue in parts of the City that have smaller lot sizes. Planning Director Darling reminded the Commission that this item is just for discussion tonight and the public hearing will be held at the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Huskins stated that he doesn’t think that six animals will be a big deal, but questions what will happen when someone wants to have 7, 8, or 9. Chair Maddy stated that is a good point because if it is limited to 6, he doesn’t think too much damage can be done and suggested that perhaps the screening requirements be pulled out of the ordinance. Commissioners Gault and Eggenberger stated that they would support that change. Chair Maddy stated that there appears to be consensus on removing the screening requirement and should just say that it is to be located a minimum of 25 feet from adjacent properties. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3, 2021 Page 6 of 9 Planning Director Darling explained that the 25 feet was included so that they could either have it farther from the property lines without screening or screen it if it was to be right up to the property lines. She stated that if the screening requirement is removed, they can take out the 25-foot setback as well and just leave it as the buildable area. Commissioner Gault asked for a definition of buildable area. Planning Director Darling stated that buildable area means that it meets all the setbacks. Chair Maddy suggested language that says ‘located within the buildable area or adequately screened’, and then keep the same screening requirement that was proposed. Commissioner Gault suggested adding shelter or enclosure to be located within the buildable area of the rear yard which means the screening requirement can go away. He stated that he would also leave the requirement that it be closer to the property owners dwelling than it is to the neighbors dwelling. Councilmember Johnson asked what would happen on a corner lot. Planning Director Darling stated that they would still have to keep it in the rear yard as defined by the zoning code. Chair Maddy confirmed that the consensus is for Subd. 2. b. it will add shelter and enclosure, kept in a buildable area, and C.2. remove the whole paragraph. Commissioner Gault asked about the amendments made to H because that is a significant reduction. Planning Director Darling stated that the City has already been enforcing it as a combination of a maximum of six and this is just clarifying that the maximum number of urban farm animals is six Commissioner Eggenberger asked if there were any additional urban farm animals other than the six that are listed and gave the example of peacocks. Planning Director Darling stated that as it is written the only allowed urban farm animals are the ones listed, so peacocks would not be allowed. Commissioner Gault noted that there is not where that urban farm animal is defined. Chair Maddy explained that it is defined but was not included in the packet. Planning Director Darling read aloud the definition for urban farm animals. Chair Maddy stated that he has an argument for including goats as an urban farm animal. Planning Director Darling stated that they have not discussed moving goats from rural into the urban farm animals category. Chair Maddy stated that he knows St. Paul allows goats as an urban farm animal. He stated that they can leave this language as is and see if a resident brings it up for a possible change. He asked if the Commission would like to change the allowed number to be more than six because, to him, that numbers seems low, especially for chickens. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3, 2021 Page 7 of 9 The Commission supported leaving the allowed number not to exceed a combined total of six. Commissioner Huskins stated that Planning Director Darling had stated that people are allowed to sell their eggs, but item f. makes it appear as though that is not allowed. Planning Director Darling stated that the State law supersedes this document, so she can take that out because she does not think the City can do anything about selling eggs on your property. Commissioner Huskins suggested that it be removed because it can be confusing and may give the neighbors something to complain about even though it is actually allowed. There was consensus to remove item f. Planning Director Darling stated that before she removes that item, she wants to do a bit more research to ensure she has understood the State law accurately. Commissioner Huskins asked if item (1) (c) under fees could be removed since the Commission has recommended doing away with the screening. Commissioner Gault asked if a building permit was required for the shelter. Planning Director Darling stated that a building permit is almost never required for this kind of shelter. She noted that she will also change the fee requirement to reflect the Council’s suggestion for a $50 fee upon renewal. The Commission suggested striking 1) under (3) (a) and just state that the permit expires five years from the date the permit is issued. Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks something should be included that states the urban farm animal owner will be responsible for the death or injury of neighboring domestic animals in the event that carnivores are attracted. Planning Director Darling stated that the next steps in the process are to notify the current permit holders that there are changes being discussed and publish it for a public hearing in September. 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan 2040 Updates Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-Wide Planning Director Darling stated that staff would like the Commission to begin reviewing the changes that staff has incorporated as directed by the Metropolitan Council. She stated that one of the impactful comments was that the City needs to allow for 155 new households between 2018 and 2040 by increasing opportunities to develop properties at 5 units per acre or greater. She stated that the City also needed to allocate properties with densities greater than 8 units per acre in order to produce 48 affordable housing units. She stated that the key word here is that the City must have the ‘opportunity’ available. She explained that the consultants have recommended using a mixed use classification which would allow for both commercial use and residential uses near Cub foods and the attached shopping center as well as Holiday Gas to the New Horizon Day Care area. She stated that they have also recommended including the following CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3, 2021 Page 8 of 9 properties as high density: 23400 Smithtown Road; 23425 County Road 19; and 23445 County Road 19. She reviewed the other small changes that have been recommended. Commissioner Gault stated that, in his opinion, some of these changes being made to change properties to high density are just on paper, but will never actually happen. Chair Maddy stated that he thinks that is why Planning Director Darling explained that the important word is ‘opportunity’ which means it doesn’t have to be built, but the possibility exists. Commissioner Gault stated that he was under the impression that the Met Council expected the City to construct these. Chair Maddy stated that he does not think that is correct and thinks it just that the City has to give the opportunity for them and cannot force the market. Planning Director Darling stated that the next steps in this process is to speak to the property owners and let them know the City is proposing a change with a public hearing to take place on October 5, 2021. She stated that she is sure the City can set the parameters for the property owners can continue using the property with their current structures as legally non-conforming. She stated that staff would just like the Commission to familiarize themselves with the proposed changes and let staff know if they have strong feelings about any of the them. Chair Maddy asked what kind of ‘teeth’ the Met Council had for a community that is mostly built out, such as Shorewood, that is rather restricted on transportation. He stated that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put a lot more people in this community without some sort of non-auto-oriented travel options. Planning Director Darling reiterated that the City just needs to make the opportunity within the land use plan and does need to change the Comprehensive Plan. B. Commission Liaisons for Upcoming Council Meetings Chair Maddy noted that Commissioner Riedel will be unable to attend the August 23, 2021 Council meeting. August – Commissioner Gault September – Chair Maddy October – Commissioner Huskins November – Commissioner Riedel December - Commissioner Eggenberger A. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR B. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report Council Liaison Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s July 26, 2021, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). • Draft Next Meeting Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 3, 2021 Page 9 of 9 Planning Technician Notermann stated that at the next meeting, there will be a CUP request for a fence along Smithtown Road, a variance for a shed, a variance/Preliminary Plat/special home occupation application for some properties on Radisson Road, and the urban farm animals issue. C. ADJOURNMENT Huskins moved, Gault seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 3, 2021, at 8:53 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. 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: September 7, 2021 RE: Text Amendments for Urban Farm Animals Attached are several amendments to the current ordinance related to keeping urban farm animals. Notice of these amendments were published in the official newspaper at least 10 in advance of the public hearing. Mailed notice of the amendments to the regulations were sent to all permit holders and those who have indicated interest in the regulations at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing. Background In June, a resident came to Matters from the Floor at the City Council 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. At their August 3, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance referred to them by the City Council and made the following suggestions:  to remove the screening that staff had previously proposed and  to review statutory language for farm animals regarding keeping them for commercial purposes Page 2 Proposed Ordinance Amendments The proposed ordinance amendments: 1. Remove the requirement that 75 percent of neighbors within 150 feet must consent to the request and remove the requirement requiring screening to the neighbors’ satisfaction. 2. Add a requirement that the animal shelter must be located closer to the animal owner’s home than 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 culling (slaughtering), except for the owner’s own use (as allowed by Minnesota Statute 28A.15). 6. Remove regulations that prohibit keeping urban farm animals for commercial purposes. Any urban farm animal owner may sell the eggs or live animals, as permitted by the Minnesota Constitution. Staff also propose several housekeeping issues to correct code references, clarify regulations, improve grammar, and the like. 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. 3. The five-year timeframe would not be a burden on either staff or the permit holder. ATTACHMENTS: Council memos for June 28 and July 26, 2021 PC Memo for August 3, 2021 Current Section 705 of City Code (Farm and Other Animals) Proposed Ordinance 7H MEETING TYPE REGULAR City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Farm Animal Regulations (Chickens) Applicant: City of Shorewood Meeting Date: June 28, 2021 Prepared By: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Chapter 705 of City Code (Farm And other Animals) Background: The City Council directed staff to explore the following options and to provide information on how other cities regulate farm animals: 1. Do other cities require neighbors to approve requests for chickens and other farm animals? 2. Do other cities allow variances within their animal ordinances for the keeping of animals? Staff and the city attorney recommend against inserting a variance process within the animal section of the code because 1) the process is costly and time-consuming for both the applicant and the city and 2) variances should be used for a dimensional relief. Other cities’ farm animal regulations only include the variance process if they are included in the zoning regulations. Staff researched the ordinances of several other cities, including Bloomington, Chanhassen, Chaska, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Excelsior, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Minnetrista, Mound, Plymouth, Shakopee, St. Paul and Tonka Bay. The following cities do not allow chickens: Excelsior, Mound, and Tonka Bay. For purposes of comparing ordinances, Deephaven and Minnetrista only allow chickens on 10 acre parcels or within the agricultural district. As a result, their regulations are not compatible. The following cities require neighbor approval: St. Paul (7-15 chickens), Shorewood The following cities require neighbor notice: Chanhassen, St. Paul (1-6 chickens) The following cities do not notice or approval: Bloomington, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Plymouth, Shakopee 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. Staff and the city attorney recommend removing the neighbor approval requirement from the City Code because the basis for the neighbor approval could be subjective and capricious. Objective standards are more appropriate when reviewing permits. Staff requests Council direction on whether notification of neighbors should be required. The City Council may want to consider when and where is it appropriate for chickens to be allowed. Should they only be allowed on properties over a certain size? Should there be a distance requirement between the coop/hive/hutch and adjacent dwellings? Staff also recommends the Council direct a code amendment that requires farm animal shelters be situated closer to the animal owner’s dwelling than to any of the neighboring dwellings, similar to standard found in Bloomington’s Code. Financial or Budget Considerations: Outside of publication and staff time to draft the ordinance amendment, there is no additional impact to the budget related to this ordinance amendment. 9A MEETING TYPE REGULAR City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Discussion Regarding Amendments for Urban Farm Animals Applicant: City of Shorewood Meeting Date: July 26, 2021 Prepared By: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Potential Ordinance Amendments for Urban Farm Animals Chapter 705.09 (Farm Animals) of City Code Background: On June 28, 2021, the City Council reviewed general information on how other cities and Shorewood regulate farm animals and directed staff to draft amendments to the ordinance to allow the following changes to the regulations: 1. Remove the requirement that a 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, but not require a fee. 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. Financial or Budget Considerations: Without a renewal fee, the City would be subsidizing the cost of processing the renewals and conducting the inspections for animal owners. Next Steps: At the June 28, 2021 meeting, staff mentioned that due to a recent Supreme Court Decision, the adoption of an ordinance amendment that relies on zoning ordinance regulations may also have to follow the same process as zoning amendments. Because the case was only recently decided, the League has not yet had time to put together guidance on this topic. To avoid any legal ambiguity with this ordinance amendment, staff recommends that the City follow the same public hearing process for this amendment as a zoning ordinance amendment. The next available meeting to hold a public hearing on this topic would be September 7, 2021. 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. 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 705.09 FARM ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Rural farm animals. Unless otherwise provided for, a person shall not keep, own, harbor or otherwise possess a rural farm animal within the city. Subd. 2. Urban farm animals. A person may own, keep, harbor or otherwise possess urban farm animals within the city in accordance with the provisions of this section. a. An urban farm animal may only be kept in the buildable area of the rear yard of the property, as defined by the Zoning Code. b. An urban farm animal that is kept outside must be provided a shelter structure of appropriate size, that is accessible to the animal at all times as provided in § 704.06, Subd. 1. of this chapter. The shelter structure and confinement areas shall be adequately screened to the satisfaction of neighboring property owners, as provided in § 705.09, Subd. 2.j.(2). Screening may be achieved by fencing or landscaping, or a combination of both. c. The urban farm animal must be contained on the property by the use of a fence or other appropriate containment device or structure. d. Roosters are not allowed. e. An urban farm animal must not be kept on residentially-zoned property if it is being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially-zoned property. f. The ground or floor of the area where an urban farm animal is kept must be covered with vegetation, concrete or other surface approved by the Planning Department, so that it can be, and is, sufficiently maintained to adequately dissipate offensive odors, in compliance with § 704.06, Subd. 2.a. and c. of this chapter. g. The number of chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, guinea hens, or rabbits shall not exceed six. h. The number of bee hives shall not exceed four. i. Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h. above, at the time of the adoption of this chapter, shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations. j. Permit issuance; fees. (1) No urban farm animal may be kept in the city until a permit to do so has been approved by the Zoning Administrator and issued by the office of the Building Official. No permit shall be granted until the necessary fee has been paid, and until the Building Official or staff representative has made an inspection of the property, and has ascertained that the premises comply with all requirements of this chapter. Detailed plans and specifications, accurate and drawn to scale, must be submitted with the application, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Site plan showing the location and setbacks of existing and proposed buildings, fences and structures on the subject property. (b) Architectural plans showing floor plans, building elevations and dimensions. (c) Landscaping plan showing how the shelter structure and confinement areas will be screened from adjoining properties. (2) The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of this chapter shall provide with the application, the written consent of 75% of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within 150 feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested, or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant's property lines are 150 feet or more from any structure. Where a street separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property, no consent is required from the owners or occupants of property located on the opposite side of the street. Where a property within 150 feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need only obtain the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building. (3) Fees. (a) The permit fee and other fees and charges set forth in this chapter shall be collected by the city before the issuance of any permits, and the Building Official, or other persons duly authorized to issue the permit for which the payment of a fee is required under the provisions of this chapter, may not issue a permit until the fees shall have been paid. (b) The City Council shall, from time to time, establish a fee schedule by ordinance. (Ord. 493, passed 3-12-2012) Penalty, see § 104.01 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: September 7, 2021 REQUEST: Variance to side and rear yard setbacks APPLICANT: Wayne Hartmann LOCATION: 27460 Maple Ridge Lane REVIEW DEADLINE: November 26, 2021 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R-1A/S FILE NUMBER: 21.22 REQUEST: The applicant requests a variance to the setback from the side and rear property lines for an accessory structure that includes a 16x 12-foot shed with an additional 16 x 10-foot carport on a 24-foot by 24-foot concrete pad. The accessory structure is already constructed and is located approximately 4 feet from the side property line where 10 feet is required and 16 feet from the rear property line where 50 feet is required. The variance application was submitted after City staff was made aware that the shed under construction without permits. 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. Staff has received several public comments that are attached to the memo. Page 2 BACKGROUND Context: The existing home was constructed in 1974. The lot was created in 1959 as part of the Virginia Highlands subdivision. The property is zoned R-1A and is in the Shoreland District of Lake Virginia. Most of the adjacent properties are all developed with single-family homes and zoned R-1A and are in the Shoreland District. Applicable Code Sections: Section 1201.26 subd. 5. a. of the zoning regulations requires a side setback of 30 feet total and a minimum of 10 feet. Section 1201.10 subd. 5. d. (2) of the zoning regulations requires a rear yard setback of not less than 50 feet. Section 1201.03 subd. 2. d. of the zoning regulations require that accessory buildings and structures shall be constructed within the buildable area of the lots as defined in § 1201.02 of this chapter except as provided in subdivision 3c of this section. Section 1201.03 subd. 1. f. of the zoning regulations states that a lawful nonconforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to lessen the nonconformity of use. Once a nonconforming structure or parcel of land has been changed, it shall not thereafter be so altered to increase the nonconformity. ANALYSIS The accessory structure in question requires a variance because the previous accessory structure was not legally non-conforming, as it was constructed across a property line and was not issued a building permit. If the previous accessory structure had been legally non-conforming, staff would have been able to administratively approve the new accessory structure of similar or smaller size under Section 1201.03 subd. 1. f. of the zoning regulations. The applicant’s narrative is attached and indicates that the accessory structure has been reconstructed to addresses a couple of issues that the old accessory structure presented. The new accessory structure pad location is 4 feet from the side yard line, although this doesn’t meet the 10-foot setback, the new location resolves the issue of the previous shed encroaching over the lot line on the neighbor’s property and reduces the amount of the encroachment into the drainage and utility easement. The applicant also states that the new improvements to the property will include the installation of a drain/drywell to help with drainage issues in the northeast corner of the property. These improvements would occur in the easement and must also be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to installation. The applicant did subsequently state that they would not be moving forward with the drain installation. The applicant’s property is situated along Lake Virginia in a way that imposes both a 75-foot setback to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Virginia and a 50-foot rear yard setback. The accessory structure has been constructed inside the drainage and utility easement that runs along the east and north property line. Because construction in drainage and utility easements is not permitted, the City will require an encroachment agreement with the property owner. This agreement Page 3 would protect the City against cost or liability for the structure and driveway should any work need to be completed in the easement. 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 lot configuration and setbacks for both side yards, a rear yard and the OHWL of Lake Virginia. a. Reasonable: The applicant has proposed a reasonable residential use on the property. b. Unique Situation vs. Self-Created: The situation is unique because the unique shape of the property means that the buildable area of the lot is subject to two side yard setbacks, a rear yard setback and a setback to the OHWL of Lake Virginia. c. Essential Character: The proposed addition would not be out of character for the neighborhood. The new shed no longer encroaches over the lot line but is in the same general location as the previous shed was. The location is shielded by heavy tree cover. 3. Economic Considerations: The applicant has not proposed the variance solely based on economic considerations, but to enhance the functionality and usage of the shed space and to move the shed back over the applicant’s property line. 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 shed is located towards the rear of the lot where three properties intersect. Both neighboring houses are approximately 100 feet away with heavy tree cover in the area. 5. Impact to Public Welfare, Other Lands or Improvements: Staff finds that the shed would not be detrimental to the public welfare as an accessory structure is a typical residential use in the area and is subject to the approval of the encroachment agreement to protect the public utility easement. The accessory structure is visible from the street, but is constructed in a manner to match the house and does not stand out. 6. Minimum to Alleviate Practical Difficulty: Staff finds the variance request is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties on the property. Page 4 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 and enter into an encroachment agreement. ATTACHMENTS Location map Applicants’ narrative and plans Previous survey and updated survey with approximate location Photographs of accessory structure Correspondence Received Page 5 27460 Maple Ridge Lane Location Map