Loading...
08 03 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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.