Loading...
05-03-2022 Planning Comm mtg Agenda packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY MAY 3, 2022 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE MADDY (Aug) ______ EGGENBERGER () _ _ HOLKER (July) ______ RIEDEL (June) ______ HUSKINS (May) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON SIAKEL (JAN-JUNE) ______ COUNCIL LIAISON GORHAM (JULY-DEC) ______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  April 5, 2022 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) City Code Amendments for Campaign and Non-Commercial Speech Signs Applicant: City of Shorewood City-wide 5. NEW BUSINESS A) Pre-Application Sketch Review Applicant: Lifestyle Communities Location 24250 Smithtown Road 6. OLD BUSINESS – None 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, APRIL 5, 2022 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Riedel, Huskins and Holker; Planning Director Darling; Planning Technician Jason Carlson; and Council Liaison Siakel Absent: None 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Eggenberger suggested that agenda items 4 and 5 be reversed because the public hearing item may get lengthy. Eggenberger moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for April 5, 2022, as amended by reversing items 4 and 5. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 1, 2022 Chair Maddy noted that the minutes denoted that the meeting was held in Council Chambers; however the meeting was held virtually. Riedel moved, Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2022, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Site Plan Amendment Review for Commercial Building Modification Applicant: Mikan Homes Location: 24275 Smithtown Road Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant proposed to remodel the building and site to accommodate their office and storage needs. She noted that the City does not do many of this type of review and gave a brief explanation of what is involved in a Site Plan Review. She explained that the applicant is proposing to re-side and re-roof the building. They will convert the car repair area on the south side of the building to a storage area and interior parking and the north side will become the office and conference room areas. She noted that they have plans to remove much of the bituminous in the front of the building but leave enough for two parking spaces. The applicant has proposed to remove much of the gravel storage area in the back but reserve enough space for 5 additional parking spaces plus maneuvering area so they can still get CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5, 2022 Page 2 of 6 the trailers and vehicles inside the building in the back. She stated that they are proposing 5 parking spaces in the back, 2 in the front and 2 inside the building which is more than what code requires. She stated that staff recommends approval with a few conditions as noted in the staff report. She explained that Site Plan Reviews do not require notification for the adjacent property owners or a public hearing, but the Commission could take public testimony. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if they will need a sign permit in order to place their sign on the building. Planning Director Darling stated that this was correct. Chair Maddy stated that it appears that the curb cut driveway onto County Road 19 is split between the two buildings and asked if there was an easement where they both have access to the full width. Planning Director Darling stated that she will defer that answer to the applicant. Commissioner Riedel stated that the existing building was legally non-conforming and asked if this proposal would reduce the non-conformity. Planning Director Darling stated that the building position would stay the same. She explained that the non-conformity is just a small amount of the northwest corner of the building plus the entire east side of the building because it is set too close to the east property line. Chair Maddy noted that they are improving the impervious surface because they are substantially reducing it. Commissioner Holker asked where the access would be to the two indoor parking spaces. Planning Director Darling explained that would be around the back and noted that is where the old repair shop space was located. Commissioner Huskins confirmed that the Commission was not here to make any comments related to ADA requirements. Planning Director Darling explained that is not really a land use decision as the ADA regulations are required by the building code and they have to conform to them as part of their building permit review. She stated that the applicant has done considerable research on the topic and the Commission can ask questions about them if they like. Ryan Jones, 6105 Seamans Drive, applicant, stated that related to the easement on the side of the property for the parking, their property line goes up to the side of the computer store. He explained that there is an existing gate that attaches to the back side of their property which is ample width for their trucks to pull down that side. He stated that there was an engineer recommendation on the labeled gravel portion on the front side of the building because right now, the parking spots protrude past where the curb cut is located. He stated that the plan is just to tilt the entrance into the front and pull those parking spots all the way so they are protected by the curb that is there. He stated that there are 4 tall bays on the back side of the building and they will be getting rid of two of them to allow for some pallet racks so they can store building materials. He noted that they will be reducing the impervious surface amount from about 88% to 60% and explained that their goal is to decrease the runoff outside of their property and increase the aesthetic from the front side of the building. He stated that related to ADA comments, the parking CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5, 2022 Page 3 of 6 spot closest to the back side of the building is the ADA parking. He noted that they have standard swing doors and they are proposing to have a wheelchair lift in the back that would bring any client that may need it up to the office level. Commissioner Huskins stated that he was just curious as to why it was in the rear of the building rather than the front. Mr. Jones explained that it is because of the way the building is situated because when you walk in the front, there are about three steps down to the landing. Commissioner Holker asked if there would be any vehicles in the building overnight. Mr. Jones stated that they were not planning to. He noted that the vehicles are their personal vehicles which are driven around regularly. He stated that there will be steadily 3 people at the office, but they are usually not in the office all at the same time and expects there will only be 1 or 2 people at the office at one time. Commissioner Riedel asked about the gravel area because that will be reduced quite a bit and asked if the usage would be changing. Mr. Jones stated that it will probably will not change outside if they don’t plan to store trailers and boats back there. He noted that he thinks there was some concern about run off of the impervious surfaces that were coming down into the park and into the City’s property. He stated that they thought there was kind of a middle ground where they could remove some of the material, but still get 4 parking spots and the trailer back up area. Commissioner Riedel asked if they would ever be pulling an excavator in that space. Mr. Jones stated that outside of getting the work done, they do not own one so he would not see the need to bring one in there. He stated that the material that they would maybe bring in would be things like doors and windows that they would load into the storage area until they were needed for a specific job. Chair Maddy asked about the curb cut off of 19 and asked if Mr. Jones would have access to the full curb cut. Mr. Jones stated that something happened when the survey was done and it looks like the curb cut is further towards the north. He explained the actual location of the curb cut and stated that there was plenty of space to pull in and out on 19. Chair Maddy stated that in one of the renderings there was an American flag flying but there is no pin spot in their electrical lighting plan for the flag and asked if they intended to fly a flag and if they would be putting in a spotlight. Mr. Jones stated that was a drawing that their architect had done and believes that he was trying to ‘pretty things up’ for them. Commissioner Huskins asked about timing for this project if it is approved. Mr. Jones stated that their biggest hurdle to overcome is getting the windows ordered and would guess that it will be about 5 or 6 months if they can get their materials. He noted that he expects that they will be able to get the interior portion of the remodel started right away. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Chair Maddy opened this item for public comment at 7:22 p.m., being there were no comments, he closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, recommending approval of the Site Plan Amendment Review at 24275 Smithtown Road, with the staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. Planning Director Darling noted that this will go before the City Council on April 25, 2022. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. A. PUBLIC HEARING – City Code Amendments for Campaign and Non- Commercial Speech Sign Amendment Discussion Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-Wide Chair Maddy confirmed that the City had only received one item of correspondence for this matter. Planning Director Darling stated that she had only received one. She explained that this is a proposed code amendment to amend regulations pertaining to campaign and non-commercial speech signs. She stated that the amendments are proposed to make the language clearer and more enforceable, consistent with State statute, move the City closer to content neutral language, and protect City against challenges based on content specific signage language. She gave an overview of some of the proposed ordinance amendments. She stated that the City received one letter from Mr. Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle that had been distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting and will be included as part of the public record for the meeting. Chair Maddy suggested that the Commission go over the two concerns that had been raised in the correspondence. He stated that one of the concerns regarding being allowed to post anything they want during non-election season which he believes is covered in another section. Planning Director Darling explained that currently, the zoning ordinance does not allow you to post signage in any number, anywhere you may want. She stated that you are allowed to post some signs on your property and noted that the language right now in the code is content specific so they are proposing to add a substitution clause so for any allowed sign, you may substitute a non-commercial speech on that sign and have it in the same locations that would otherwise be allowed. She noted that most signs have a 5-foot setback from front property lines and a 5 foot setback from side property lines. Commissioner Riedel confirmed that the substitution clause only applies to signs on your own property and not within easements. He stated that he believes the intent is for these amendments to serve as a bridge and the intent is to revisit this ordinance following the election season. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Planning Director Darling stated that they could not look at revisions for the entire sign code in time for the election campaign season, so they are proposing targeted amendments specifically for campaign and election signage. The Commission discussed details of the substitution clause, right-of-way, setbacks, what portions of the Code are intended to be revisited and suggested some additional language changes to make things clearer. Commissioner Eggenberger noted under General Provisions #11 it appears to exempt flags but sometimes what is on a sign is also what is seen on a flag. He asked what ‘political unit’ meant. Planning Director Darling stated that she would take that to mean a County, City, or a district. Commissioner Eggenberger asked what is meant by the term ‘integral signs’. Planning Director Darling explained that she was not sure what that term meant when this was written and noted that this is a paragraph that will take some amendment when the code is rewritten. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he was just trying to make sure they understood because he feels people will try to get around it. Chair Maddy noted that he had just checked the dictionary and it stated, ‘necessary to make a whole, complete, essentially, or fundamental’. Commissioner Riedel stated that he would read it as a sign that is in one piece and not presented in several pieces. Planning Director Darling noted that she found a definition for it within the zoning regulations which is, ‘a sign carrying the name of a building, its date of erection, monumental citations, commemorative tablets, and the like when carved into stone, concrete or similar material, or made of bronze, aluminum or other permanent type of construction and made an integral part of the structure.’ Commissioner Holker clarified that this is a portion of the Code that they are planning to revisit post-election period. Huskins moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the Draft Text Amendments for Campaign Signs and Non-Commercial Speech Signs with the amendment under General Provisions C, #6 to explicitly state the exceptions. Motion passed 5/0. 6. OLD BUSINESS – NONE 7. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report Council Liaison Siakel noted that due to spring break, the Council did not meet last week and gave an update on the discussions and actions taken at the March 14, 2022 City Council meeting. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 5, 2022 Page 6 of 6 Chair Maddy noted that he will not be in attendance at next month’s Planning Commission meeting. Planning Director Darling stated that there is an application for a rezoning, PUD and preliminary plat for 9 units on the east side of Lake Como, just north of Radisson Road, but noted that she wasn’t sure if that would be ready in time for the May meeting. She stated that she will keep the Commission informed because they may end up cancelling the next meeting. • Liaison to Council for June, July, and August June – Commissioner Riedel July – Commissioner Holker August – Chair Maddy 8. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Huskins seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 2022, at 7:56 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. 2 MEETING TYPE Worksession City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Potential Amendments to City Code Chapter 1201.03 Regarding Rules for Campaign and Other Related Signage Meeting Date: February 2, 2022 Prepared By: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Draft ordinance amendments At the January 24, 2022 meeting, the City Council directed staff to provide a review of any necessary changes to the zoning ordinance related to election signage. The Council’s stated goal was to have any changes to the ordinance completed prior to the election season. Below staff have prepared a summary of the current statute language, current city regulations, and staff recommendations on what is needed to improve the regulations. State Statute: Minnesota State Statute 211B.045 has specific language regarding noncommercial speech signs during state election years. During the defined time-period above, no City may limit the number or size of campaign signs. Shorewood Code Language: In an attempt to comply with State Statute, Shorewood’s current sign regulations (Section 1201.03 Subd. 11. b. (1) (d) of City Code) related to the above include the following: Page 2 Improvements Proposed: 1. Remove the defined term “campaign sign” from the code and replace with noncommercial speech sign (with a new definition). Campaign sign is a term that regulates content, which is no longer allowed in sign regulations. Noncommercial speech sign is viewed as a content neutral label and is consistent with Supreme Court precedent. 2. Use the same time period for all elections consistent with state statute, 46 days prior to primaries until 10 days after the election. 3. Remove the fee for removal of signs as it would be difficult to determine who would need to be charged and staff typically does not try to assess the cost of removing the signs. 4. Keep the distance requirement from the edge of the street to protect the use of the street and adjacent boulevard for drivers and pedestrians. 5. Add a substitution clause to allow any noncommercial speech to be substituted for other noncommercial speech signs or commercial signs. This would allow noncommercial speech signs in lieu of other allowed signs outside of the election time period defined in statute. Staff provided some optional draft language on the issues outlined above. Next Steps The amendments that were previously in front of the City Council at their July 26, 2021 meeting, were continued indefinitely. To reconsider any amendments, a new public hearing would need to be held at the Planning Commission. To be in place prior to the next election, the city would need to have the ordinance approved and published prior to May 1, 2022 to avoid any conflicts with the current language in the code that indicates signs are permitted 100 days prior to any election. As the City Council considers sign regulations, it is important to note that due to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015), a city may not restrict expression based on its content (e.g., distinguishing between garage sale signs, wedding signs, campaign signs), but still may regulate signs on a reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Following Reed, cities have regulated the following:  Rules regulating the size of signs.  Rules regulating the locations in which signs may be placed.  Rules distinguishing between lighted and unlighted signs.  Rules distinguishing between signs with fixed messages and electronic signs with messages that change.  Rules that distinguish between the placement of signs on private and public property.  Rules distinguishing between the placement of signs on commercial and residential property.  Rules distinguishing between on-premises and off-premises signs.  Rules restricting the total number of signs allowed per mile of roadway.  Special rules for government signs. Page 3 Direction: Staff requests direction on the following: 1. Does the City Council find amendments to the regulations are warranted at this time? 2. Are the amendments shown adequate or would the City Council find other amendments to the sign code are needed at this time as well? CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING (Held via interactive technology/videoconferencing) Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Siakel, Gorham, and Callies; City Attorney Shepherd; City Administrator Lerud; Planning Director Darling; and Director of Public Works Brown; Absent: None B. Review Agenda Siakel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Callies, Siakel, Gorham and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed 5/0. 2. SIGN ORDINANCE Planning Director Darling stated that staff was directed to provide a review of any necessary changes to the Zoning Ordinance related to election signage at the January 24, 2022 meeting. She noted that included in the packet was language from the State statute as well as the Shorewood City Code. She explained that what staff is hoping to accomplish is to strip down the proposal just to the most important issues to minimize any impact that changes to the signage may cause. She stated that staff would like to move the ordinance towards content neutrality and have a clear time period for enforcement of election signage and add a substitution clause to allow more opportunity for non-commercial speech signs outside of the election time period. She reviewed the improvements that staff are proposing as outlined in the staff report. She noted that a new public hearing would need to be held by the Planning Commission before any changes could be adopted. She stated that in order for this to be in place prior to the election, the ordinance would need to be approved and published prior to May 1, 2022. Councilmember Callies stated that she had already spoken with Planning Director Darling regarding some of her questions. She stated that overall, she agrees with what is being proposed and thinks it is helpful to have this meeting prior to the public hearing so the Council can try to winnow down what is being considered by the Planning Commission. She noted that in her opinion, a distance of ten feet from the street surface is too much for many neighborhoods in the City. She stated that she would like to see the City stick with the five foot distance that is located elsewhere in the ordinance for non-commercial speech signs. She stated that she understands why the City wants to have consistency for all types of elections, however, she thinks it is too drastic of a change from the current language. She reviewed the time period between the primary and general election for the school board and noted that 46 days for the other type of public CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2022 Page 2 of 6 elections is not really keeping it the same for the type of elections because the time period between the primary and general election for some, is longer than that time period. She stated that she would like to keep it at one-hundred days as it is in the current ordinance. She asked where signs like ‘Happy Birthday’ or ‘Black Lives Matter’ would fit into the ordinance and why the City was doing a substitution clause. Planning Director Darling stated that regarding the setback being too large, the City has the ability to alter that particular setback. She stated that she thinks five feet may be too close in some situations and gave the example of situation where there are improved shoulders adjacent to the paved roadway, unless they alter the setback to be from the improved roadway which takes into account shoulders. She stated that regarding the time period for signage being one-hundred days, as long as it is clearly written and can be enforced so it does not allow one-hundred days before every primary and every election, she thinks that would be acceptable. She explained the substitution clause which allows any sign that is allowed in any district to be substituted, so you can substitute out the non-commercial speech message for whatever the allowed message is on the permitted or listed sign. She gave the example of address signage as one that is allowed at two square feet, so most of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ or “Blue Lives Matter’ signs would fit into that square footage allowance, so they would be allowed to have that on the property as a substitute for the address sign. City Attorney Shepherd gave a brief explanation of the substitution clause and noted that it is a mechanism that helps the City address some of the issues that arise in the sign ordinance especially in light of recent case law. He referenced the most recent Supreme Court case of Reed v. Gilbert and noted that what needs to be considered is that there can be no content based regulation but the City can have reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, such as setback from the road. He stated that there are things in the Code that still need to be worked on to ensure that the City is complying with the content neutrality issue. Councilmember Callies stated that she finds the substitution clause a bit confusing, not because of the way Planning Director Darling has written it, but because it is a confusing principle. She noted that the City could be put at risk if it did not have the ability to substitute this type of sign and understands that it is a good thing to have and feels it is of benefit to citizens. Councilmember Gorham stated that he was also confused by the substitution clause because from reading it, it appeared that you could substitute a campaign sign for a ‘Black Lives Matter’ sign which means it would then be restricted by the timeframe. He stated that it looks like it refers to a different subdivision so you have to do that bit of digging to understand it. He stated that he would like to see the distance be closer, such as five feet. He asked about Section 3, Subd. C.(3) where it states, ‘No portion of any sign shall be located within five feet of any property line, except as permitted in b.(1)(d) of this subdivision.’ He stated that this says five feet, but the subdivision it references says ten feet and noted that he felt this was a strange way to word it. Councilmember Siakel stated that she agreed that there are a lot of situations in the City where ten feet does not make sense. She asked if there could be a distinction between a County roadway versus a side street. She stated that for the most part, five feet, in Shorewood, seems to make sense and would like to see if there would be a way to differentiate between the type of street for five feet versus ten feet. She gave the example of a sign in her yard being back ten feet and explained that it would never be seen. She stated that she agreed with the comment made by Councilmember Callies regarding school board election signs going from one-hundred to forty- six days and understands why the City would want to align that number. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2022 Page 3 of 6 Mayor Labadie stated that she agrees that there are portions of the City where ten feet would make signs not visible. She asked if Public Works Director Brown had any concerns from a Public Works standpoint with a five foot setback versus a ten foot setback. Public Works Director Brown stated that the City could specifying a setback from a corner because that is typically where you get into most site distance issues. He suggested that there be something similar to the landscaping ordinances where there is a site triangle requirement at the intersections. Mayor Labadie stated that she does not want to get to the point where the City is out actively policing signs and has become an enforcer. Councilmember Siakel stated that the City has not done this in the past and noted that she was not sure why this issue has become such a big deal. She stated that she understands updating the ordinance because of some of the things such as the Supreme Court decision, but does not think this should be punitive. She stated that if someone wants to be able to put up a sign in their yard, she feels they should be able to do that. Councilmember Callies asked about the statement made earlier by Planning Director Darling when she talked about distance from the improved roadway versus the street surface. She stated that, to her, that sounds like the same thing. She stated that she believes that there have been complaints in every election so she understands the City has to have something in the Code, but in her opinion, the less said, the better. Mayor Labadie stated that this came about because of complaints during the last election. She explained that she would like this ordinance to get to the point where anyone can understand it clearly. She stated that she feels the current language was not easily understood, which is where Councilmember Callies explanation that ‘less is more’ would be beneficial. Councilmember Siakel asked what the specific complaints were and suggested that perhaps the discussion needed to focus on those specific areas. She stated that if the goal is to simplify it and make it easily understood, she would say that saying something has to be five feet from an ‘improved road surface’ is probably confusing for most people. Public Works Director Brown stated that they did check on some signs based on complaints that were received and explained that all the complaints they received were based on setback concerns. He stated that he thinks road surface is adequate language and is easy for anyone to check. Planning Director Darling stated that during the last election, the City had complaints in two different areas of the City where signs were placed so close to the road and in such number that the callers were frustrated by having an overwhelming amount of signs right up to the street. She explained that in previous years the complaints were, in general, about too much signage and noted that what the City can enforce, is setbacks. Councilmember Johnson stated that he did not see any regulations for overall non-commercial speech signs size. Planning Director Darling explained that during the election period, the City is not allowed to regulate the size of signs or the number of signs. Mayor Labadie suggested that the Council take a look a defining the edge of the road and determine how far back they would like to go. Councilmember Callies stated that based on the discussion, she feels the Council has consensus to have signs be allowed five feet from the edge of pavement. Public Works Director Brown noted CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2022 Page 4 of 6 that the City has three gravel roadways so there may need to be some provision made for those. He stated that if the roadway is unimproved then it would be from the edge of the aggregate surface. Councilmember Callies stated that she believes the Council also had consensus on allowing one-hundred days for other types of elections, such as school board. Councilmember Siakel noted that she sees Mr. Yelsey’s hand raised and stated that this may be a good time to allow public input. Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, stated that he agrees with most of the statements made by Councilmember Callies. He stated that he feels the five foot setback and allowing one-hundred days for elections other than the State mandated ones makes sense, although he would prefer a three foot setback. He stated that he does not like the substitution clause and does not feel it is stated clearly. He stated that the Council has not yet addressed the concern that caused many citizens to be unhappy which was what happens to signs outside of the election period. He stated that there is no language that clearly says you can put up any kind of signs that you want, in your lawn, with minimal or no restrictions. He stated that he feels this is free speech and would suggest that there be language that says for non- commercial signs, outside of the election period, here is what you are able to do. He stated that he believes it is illegal for the City to call out holiday signs or illumination of holiday signs and would ask that they be treated as any other non-commercial signage and not to restrict it in any significant way because that is also free speech. He reiterated that the substitution clause as it is, is unfathomable and would encourage the City to create simple language. He stated that he has raised the issue of right-of-way several times and it is still there because the City actually prohibits signs in the right-of-way. He stated that the City allows mailboxes and plantings, but does not allow signs and suggested that language also be corrected and make it clear that people can put up signs in the right-of-way with a setback. He stated that theft has also been an issue with signs and explained that he would love to see a clause that addresses that issue and makes it a misdemeanor in the City. He stated that the City may also want to limit hate speech. Mayor Labadie asked City Attorney Shepherd or Planning Director Darling to address Mr. Yelsey’s comments on right-of-way, hate speech, theft, holiday signs, and the three foot setback. Planning Director Darling explained that, in general, staff would want to preserve the right-of-way for the purpose it was created for, which would be things like drainage projects and allow no private improvements. She noted that mailboxes have to be allowed in order to allow for mail delivery. She stated that improvements in the right-of-way require permits but signs are generally not something the City would issue permits for. Councilmember Callies stated that it appears as though non-commercial speech signs are allowed in the right-of-way as permitted, which seems to address Mr. Yelsey’s concern. Planning Director Darling explained that staff wrote this section to allow them during the election period, but not at any other time. City Attorney Shepherd stated that Council may want to make a distinction between non-commercial speech signs during the election period versus others. Mr. Yelsey stated there is encroachment and right-of-way language included in the Code that says you cannot do what Councilmember Callies just stated can be done. He stated that the language conflicts and is confusing because it says nothing can be put into a right-of-way other than a mailbox and landscaping. He stated that most people do not know how large the right-of- way is on their property from the roadway. City Attorney Shepherd stated that staff can look at other language that is purported to be conflicting with the right-of-way provision in the sign ordinance because the City does not want CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2022 Page 5 of 6 people to be confused about the restrictions or lack thereof. He stated that to address Mr. Yelsey’s comment related to hate speech, that would be considered a content based restriction. He stated that tonight’s discussion certainly addresses the election related provisions of the sign ordinance but as he noted earlier, there are other provisions of the sign ordinance that need amendment. He stated that the substitution clause is sort of a preservation clause that is recommended by the League of Minnesota Cities and preserves the ability of the residents to have non-commercial signs when there is otherwise conflicting regulations in the Code. He explained that he thinks it is important to have in the Code, but noted that staff could take a look at ‘wordsmithing’ it a bit to make it a bit more clear. Mayor Labadie asked about the issue related to theft of signs. City Attorney Shepherd stated that he thinks theft of signs can be prosecuted as any other theft under State law. He stated that theft is not called out in the Code, but does not think it needs to be in order for it to be prosecuted. Public Works Director Brown noted that the City has had incidents of theft that the SLMPD has been involved in and noted that he believes that they were prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Mr. Yelsey explained that he has had many signs stolen and noted that the owner of the sign is often the political party and sometimes it is the property owner. He stated that it would be nice to have a clause in the Code that clearly states it is a misdemeanor just to help preclude people from doing that. Councilmember Siakel noted that most people who are stealing signs are most likely not reading City Code. She stated that it will go back to going to the police department and filing a complaint. Mr. Yelsey explained that many times it is kids doing the stealing and feels their parents need to know that this is a serious crime and not just fun and games like taking a pumpkin at Halloween. Guy Sanschagrin, 27725 Island View Road, stated that he would like to touch on theft and vandalism of signs. He explained that he had many signs stolen and vandalized during the last election. He stated that he feels it is not just the ‘law’ but also what is done to communicate, enforce, and encourage people to follow the law. He stated that he is challenged by complaint based enforcement. He also gave the example of the Birch Bluff area and noted that he did not think any of those properties would be able to have signs on them because the hedges are right along the roadway even with a five foot rule. He stated that he feels Shorewood can do better than it did during the last election. He stated that it should not just be about enforcement and the law but should be about everyone coming together as a community to have a fair and just election. Councilmember Siakel stated that anybody who has run for office has had some situation where a sign has disappeared and does not think that is unique to one candidate or one election. She stated that she would encourage people that want things to change, to start with themselves. Mayor Labadie asked Councilmember Siakel to comment on the comment made regarding hedges in the Birch Bluff area. Councilmember Siakel stated that she feels the comment made by Mr. Sanschagrin is probably accurate, which is one of the reasons that she suggested five feet from the roadway. She explained that ten feet would make it very difficult for anybody on Birch Bluff and many other streets within the City. She noted that Mr. Yelsey brought up some points that probably should be discussed and suggested that the Council divide this topic and just focus on campaign signs tonight and cover the other points at a later time. Councilmember Callies stated that she agreed that there should be two discussions and that tonight can focus on the campaign signs in order for that to be completed prior to the election. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2022 Page 6 of 6 She stated that the Council can then deal with the other items that need to be updated at a later date. Councilmember Gorham stated that the misdemeanor language does not feel to him like it belongs in City Code because it is not within their control of how it is enforced. He suggested that perhaps it is something that is noted in the Shore Report or the newsletter that theft activity is discouraged. Mayor Labadie stated that she also felt a letter in the Sun Sailor and/or on the Shore Report would be a good idea to remind people that vandalism and theft of signs is a punishable offense. She stated that she feels this may be a more appropriate route than modifying the actual Code language. She asked about the timeline for making these changes. Planning Director Darling stated that she feels that there will be enough time to make these changes prior to the election season, if the public hearing is held in April. 3. ADJOURN Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of February 14, 2022, at 6:58 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Siakel, Callies, Johnson, Gorham, and Labadie voted aye. Motion passed 5/0. ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk Marie Darling From:Marie Darling Sent:Friday, April 22, 2022 9:19 AM To:Kara Widhalm Subject:RE: Question on proposed Shorewood ordinance relating to signs No, they are not subject to the time restrictions for election signage, but they will be subject to the five foot setback from property lines and any other restrictions on the signs that they replace. Marie Darling Planning Director 952-960-7912 mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 MN Data Practices Notification: Pursuant to MN Data Practices Chapter 13 all government data including email communications is presumed to be public unless there is a specific state statute, federal law, or temporary classification that classifies it otherwise. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us From: Kara Widhalm <ksflook@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 9:19 PM To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Re: Question on proposed Shorewood ordinance relating to signs Hello Ms. Darling, Thank you for your reply and the updated information on this amendment. It is very helpful to understand the context of this amendment, including the need to update the ordinance to conform with the supreme court decision. Will non-commercial signs that are unrelated to elections/campaigns still be subject to the timing restrictions listed in (1)(d)(i), which were time periods related to election days? Thank you-- I really appreciate your help. Kara 1 On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 9:57 AM Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us> wrote: Sorry for the delay in responding, I didn’t get a copy of your email. The campaign signs amendments are not scheduled to be discussed at the City Council meeting on April 25. They will be back at the Planning Commission on May 3 for public hearing and likely forwarded to the City Council on May 9. This is a small targeted amendment to specifically correct conflicting language within the current campaign sign regulations in Shorewood’s code prior to the next election and to add a substitution clause to conform to a Supreme court decision a few years back. Public, integral and holiday signs are defined in the zoning regulations (1201.02 of City Code). These definitions are not changing, so they aren’t included in the ordinance amendments. The definition of non-commercial speech is purposely broad to allow signs for many types of messages that are not commercial in nature, including high school graduation signs, dance signs, athletic association signs, positions on social issues, etc. Shorewood’s current regulations do not specifically allow for noncommercial speech signs. A decision in a Supreme Court case a few years back requires all cities to allow non-commercial speech signs for any other allowed sign in a zoning district. The City is adding a substitution clause to conform to that ruling and allow anyone to put up a noncommercial speech sign in lieu of any other signs that are already allowed including, but not limited to, “owner occupant signs” or “holiday signs”. Holiday signs are not a proposed addition to the code, they are already specifically allowed. They are signs no greater than 32 square feet that are allowed to be placed for 30 days in recognition of any federal, state or local holiday. A copy of your letter and my response will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Marie Darling Planning Director 952-960-7912 mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us 2 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 MN Data Practices Notification: Pursuant to MN Data Practices Chapter 13 all government data including email communications is presumed to be public unless there is a specific state statute, federal law, or temporary classification that classifies it otherwise. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us From: Kara Widhalm <ksflook@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 6:59 PM To: Planning <planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Sandie Thone <SThone@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Question on proposed Shorewood ordinance relating to signs Hello, I never received an answer to my email below Thank you, Kara Widhalm ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kara Widhalm <ksflook@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2022, 17:30 3 Subject: Question on proposed Shorewood ordinance relating to signs To: <sthone@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Dear Ms. Thone, I reviewed the redlined ordinance regarding signs that is to be discussed at the April 25 City Council meeting and have a few questions: 1. "Public signs" and "integral signs" are not clearly defined in this ordinance; is there a definition available for these terms? 2. The definition of "noncommercial speech" signs appears to be broad enough to include signs expressing support for an idea, group (e.g. sports team) or individual not running for political office or related to elections. Is this correct? 3. Why would "noncommercial speech" signs that are unrelated to elections be subject to timing restrictions related to election events? 4. What constitutes a "holiday sign"? Thank you for your time and your assistance. Kara Widhalm ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: City of Shorewood <jmoore@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2022, 10:00 Subject: Shorewood ordinance relating to signs To: <ksflook@gmail.com> Monday, April 25, 7 p.m. 4