okay uh we do have a quorum and commissioner gold will not be able to attend this evening he is traveling so cheer then i will leave it for you you may um give me some advice [Music] you need to mute the dog there we go i wonder if you're gonna unmute me okay all right hello okay then uh since you are all here i'm going to open the waiting room turn a ridge gun in there it is um [Music] uh and if someone could let me know if the slideshow is visible i'm seeing it yes i am i'm sure i'll turn it over to you all right thank you is our um what do you call it the lobby is anyone else waiting to get in are we all here uh right now everyone who has requested to be in is in all right well let's uh start this up it is seer 703 tuesday february 15 2022 and i'm calling to order the meeting of the shorewood planning commission um have the record state that commissioners eigenberger riedel huskins and chair maddie are in attendance uh commissioner galt is not in attendance um well um let's say um for anyone who hasn't been to a commission meeting i just want to kind of let you know how this works we are an appointed body of volunteers appointed by the city council we volunteer our time to kind of do the homework for land use regulations uh for the city of shorewood um we will go through i'll kind of state the process as we move forward on how we're going to work tonight but um we'll just jump right into our schedule and um then we'll get to the matters from the floor in public hearing next so with that being said uh the first item on our agenda is approval of the agenda are there any uh additions or uh corrections to the agenda none for me i moved to approve the agenda i said all right commissioner riedel moved and commissioner hoskins seconded since we are in digital platform tonight we're going to do a roll call for every vote um seeing no discussion on the matter uh we'll just move right into a vote commissioner hagenberger hi commissioner riedel hi commissioner huskins the agenda is approved moving on to the next item is the approval of the minutes of our november 16 2021 meeting are there any additions or corrections to those minutes and i'll i'll start out with one looks like commissioners huskin huskins is listed as present and absent so we should probably clarify i can i can affirm that i was absent [Laughter] all right so let's pull uh commissioner huskins off the uh the present list of the minutes for november 16. are there any other uh corrections or auditions i move we approve the minutes second all right the motion to approve uh the minutes of let's see november 16th was made by commissioner riedel and seconded by who was was that edenberger yes okay move right into a role called votes commissioner eggenberger aye commissioner riedel aye commissioner huskins abstain and chair maddie votes i that motion passes 3-0 with one extension now we will move into our matters from the floor so this is where anyone can tell us anything they want that isn't on the agenda later on for the meeting so we limit this to three minutes if somebody wants to speak on something that doesn't have anything to do with a variance request or urban farm animal our work program or liaison volunteers they can speak now we'll use the raise your hand function if you want to speak to something not on the agenda again so director darling can you i guess look for the raised hands within the zoom meeting i see one person who has requested to speak um miss christine sanchogram i will unmute her now go in the muter thank you uh chippers and maddie i just want to clarify that there will be an opportunity to speak during the uh public hearing and the new business is that correct that is correct it's not technically a public hearing it's new business but we will open it up for comment from the community okay thank you that's all i wanted to clarify all right does anyone else like to say anything not related to an agenda item raise hands what is it uh under participants it's been a while since we've done this it's under uh reactions oh there you go okay so you want to raise your hand it's click on the reactions button down below and we'll unmute you but um i don't see anyone so we can move on to the next item here so we'll close matters from the floor 708 and then we'll move on to the public hearings there are none we'll move on to new business so how this is going to work um and we'll just talk about the the proverbial elephant in in the virtual room is it the the item that we're discussing tonight does involve the mayor of the city of shorewood and so how this is going to work there are no conflicts of interest within the commissioners that i know about they recuse themselves if there were so what we're going to do is get a staff report from a contract planner not director darling but a different planner who has written this report then we will have commissioners be allowed to ask our contract planner questions and maybe our attorney if we would like to ask about that and then we'll open it up for anyone to speak um i'm thinking let's see here 35 people in the meeting tonight so we're going to also limit this we want to make sure we treat everyone fairly because we're going to ask to stick to three minutes per person that would like to speak to this issue and then do your best to not not repeat other points but i know some of that will happen it's public hearing it it's it we want to make sure everybody gets hurt so yeah staff will give the report the commission will ask questions we'll open it up to the rest of the community and then we'll close the public hearing part the input and then the commissioners will uh converse and decide and probably make a motion uh all of our emotions are non-binding they are recommendations to the council who actually makes the final decision in matters such as these so with that um it will yield to um let's see here is it uh ms lindahl who's giving a report yes yes mr okay so yeah go ahead and uh whenever you're ready um start your report all right um i was just flipping through i think uh i want to share my screen marie i think i'm gonna run the slideshow from my end is that correct yes that's fine i do have the slideshow up so you should be able to oh there we go okay so um thank you my name is kendra lindahl i'm a planner with landform professional services and i am the planner who reviewed this request this is a request for a two variances uh at 5510 howard's point road next slide if you would marie i think i can flip it flip it for me thank you uh this is the the site on howards road the blue dock is shown on this aerial next slide so the request tonight is twofold there is a request for a variance to allow a dock greater than four feet wide and a second variance to allow the dock to branch outward within eight feet of the ordinary high water level notice of the request was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property and the city received 12 letters and emails after the packet went out all of those letters and emails were provided to the planning commission those letters are entered into the record as if they were read tonight so they are entered into the public record along with the three emails that were submitted by the applicant as part of their application many of the comments in the letters were unrelated to the variance requests but the variance related comments were focused on primarily that the the belief that the variance standards were not met as proposed and again those are entered into the record next slide marie this is an image in the center of the sketch of the applicant's request to retain the existing dock and then on either side are images that were taken as part of the code uh enforcement violation uh this summer next slide so background on this um this property on how it road did have a dock installed on or before april 1985. those are the earliest aerial images that either the applicant or staff could prov find the dock is permanent meaning that the dock itself remains in the water year round it does not come out of the lake in 1989 the homeowners at that time not the applicant obtained a dnr permit to dredge the channel to provide access to the upper lake and as part of that dredging uh exercise lowered the channel um in order to provide access for not only this home but some of the neighbors and that created a channel in the middle of the bay or lagoon the existing home was demolished and a new home was built in 2000 that was not built by the applicant the current ordinance was adopted in 2006 and it was intended to bring the city's dock ordinance into compliance with the minnesota dnr and the lake minnetonka conservation district standards in 2010 the applicant purchased the property the owner was notified the applicant of an existing doc violation in october of this year and received and worked with staff and received an extension they then submitted a variance application for the doc with and setback that we're looking at this evening so when reviewing a variant the code outlines specific standards or criteria that must be reviewed as part of a variance application and the burden of true proof is on the applicant to show that they meet those variants standards the standards are outlined in the staff report but i am going to walk through them this evening as well next slide the first standard is that the variance is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and the variance is for a use a dock in a lagoon that is allowed accessory to an existing home in the r1a district and the dock itself is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and the types of uses anticipated in the ordinance the dock has been in place for 36 years plus or minus and has not been removed in the winter next slide the applicant this analysis is is three prong tests that the applicant has established that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter staff finds that the continued use of the doc which has been in place for more than 36 years is a reasonable use of the property that the plight of the landowner is in fact due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner the dock was originally installed by a previous landowner and remains in the lagoon year round additionally the application materials include information about the lake dredging and sign statements from two local dock installation professionals with experience in this lake who provided their professional opinion that the soils in the lagoon create a unique circumstance that would not allow the dock to be safely extended further into the lagoon it if allowed to continue the dot configuration in this location would not alter the essential character of the locality as it has remained in that general location for more than three decades next slide the variance is not based exclusively on economic considerations again the applicant's information includes information from two professionals who have performed work on site who have indicated that extending the doc would likely result in its sinking on the end for this from the shoreline and would create an unstable dock situation as well as an unstable boat lift and slip next slide the variants shall not will not impair adequate supply of light and air to property or in increased congestion in the public streets this is a dock on a lagoon where it has remained for as i said more than three six decades the variance would not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare or injurious to other land it has been in place for more than 36 years next slide and the variance to allow the dock to remain would be the minimum action necessary to address the practical difficulties as any change to move the dock further into the lagoon would place it nearer to the dredge channel in the soft soils which could create an unstable and unsafe dock next slide for those reasons outlined in the staff report staff finds that the variant standards have been met and does recommend approval of both variances however variance criteria are open to interpretation if the planning commission agrees they should recommend approval of the two variances subject to the findings in in the staff report the planning commission though could reasonably find otherwise and they could recommend denial of the variance uh one or both of the variances if the planning commission chooses to do so they should verbally make a motion to direct staff to draft a resolution denying one or both variances and providing reasons for such denial lastly the planning commission could do something in the middle and could recommend conditions to mitigate the impact of any variance that is granted so with that mr chair i am happy to answer any questions about my analysis of this variance again all comments uh have been provided to the planning commission ahead of the time ahead of this meeting and they're into the public record all right thank you ms lindahl are there any questions for foreign from the commission uh perhaps i can go first but i see that uh commissioner huskins also has one so my question is this in the application packet the applicant made claim to uh the so-called grandfathering status for the doc the the claim that the doc in its current configuration actually qualified as a legally non-conforming structure we would see the city staff rejected that argument and hence the variance application could you comment on that process and if this is correct uh the basis for the city disagreeing with the stock being a legally non-conforming structure you are correct that we did see that part of the application the city attorney is here and i think i would ask him to weigh in on that analysis we simply just don't think that um we think the variance was the right approach but if the city attorney could provide further comment mr surfer sure uh thank you chair members of the commission um first off you're correct that you know the application package talks about uh you know a lawful non-conformity um assertion um that is more akin to an administrative appeal in in the context of the um the kind of procedural posture of of of the application or of of that uh argument um the administrative appeals not in front of you tonight it is simply the variance application um so we're not asking you to make a decision up or down on whether or not there is a lawful non-conforming use um and we're not taking a position on that tonight we're simply uh asking you to review the variance application all right so just to if i can clarify a little bit so we all are on the same page um if if the council ends up granting this variance then the enforcement action stops if the council rejects this variance request then do we go back to administrative enforcement um on possibly a legally non-conforming use sure um chair that's correct in terms of the posture here the the variance application is the opportunity for the applicant to um bring their their property into compliance with the city code through the variants which would be ultimately potentially granted by the city council once that variance is granted then uh the applicant is kind of square vis-a-vis the city code because of the approval if the the city council ultimately denies the variance then we have a a doc that is in violation of the city code and enforcement would uh follow from there okay but i'm i'm looking at an aerial photo from 2002 that predates modern zoning codes on doc size how can we argue that this wouldn't be legally non-conforming say that again dusty well just looking at the aerial photos from 2002 which predates uh the shorewood adopting the more strict dock regulations the dock was already there and you can tell that it's a double width and within eight feet of the shore and i'm just trying to figure out why why we're going for the variance first versus legally non-conforming again the the lawful non-conforming use um argument is a administrative appeal to the enforcement of the code that wasn't timely filed as i understand it the variance application is a timely file variance application um so that is what the that's the application um that's under consideration tonight okay so well for everyone's clarification we're only talking about variances tonight but if uh if a chair if i could press the city attorney a bit further i understand that uh you know uh the agenda item here is consideration variance i understand that that's our job to consider and and make recommendations on but nevertheless the issue of legal non-conformity does bear on a variance decision if i can illustrate uh with a generic example suppose there's a non-conforming lot there's a house on the non-conforming lot and the applicant wants to put an addition on the non-conforming lot in such a case the addition doesn't qualify as a legally non-conforming structure but the discussion of the house being legally non-conforming is relevant because that generally forms the basis of the decision to grant a variance and so here uh you know if i can press you further is has the city taken no position on whether this could be considered a legally non-conforming structure or has it decided no it's not hence apply for a variance was the recommendation can you give an answer on that or um are you not in a position to answer that sure city staff is not taking a position on whether there's a lawful non-conforming use here tonight um we're just taking a position uh as as outlined in the memo on the the variance application and the request um certainly and i take your point with respect to um the idea of a use being in predating city code and certainly if you look at the powerpoint just presented and the staff report from ms lindell you'll see that staff is recommending and and and and it's the planning commission can consider the fact that we have a doc that's been there for 36 years um and that can certainly be a factor um within the the analysis that we're asking you to do with respect to the practical difficulties test thank you commissioner huskins did you have a question yes i just wanted to to know for the record was there a variance request made by the labadees in 2012 prior to the doc maintenance and third section edition it is mr chair it is my understanding that the uh dock was simply installed that no variance was applied for that the clip uh was part of the work for fixing according to the applicant the footings on the end of the dock and that slip was installed by one of the dog companies i have but i don't believe a permit or a variance was applied for okay i have a second question that is are there any legal prohibitions on approving variances retroactively for work that was completed already prior to the variants being applied for um chair members of the commission no there isn't i mean that that this happens frequently where um someone might have a property that is is considered in violation the city code and then they would apply apply for a variance as a way to remedy that problem and achieve compliance with the city code and a final uh question and that is um we're talking about one dock on the lagoon and i'm wondering if there are any precedents on any of the other docks as to their compliance with the code from 2006 or not what i would say is that other docs situations are going to be unique in the different ways whether it's the structure of the dock whether it's it's it's in a loud dock or not what you have in front of you tonight is the commission is this dock and the the variance request related to this stock and that's the only thing that's in front of the commission tonight thank you all right any more questions for staff before we open it up to the applicants i just want to clarify on the variance uh number two for the setback from the ordinary high water so right now the dock is one foot short of being in compliance is that correct miss linda no the dock is actually one foot from the shoreline where eight feet is required at its near okay all right well um since it looks like we're done with questions now for staff um is the applicant here and would you like to speak to us because i see at least one of the applicants is here and yeah go ahead maya labidy if you'd like to speak looks like you've got your hand up and you shouldn't be needed but we can't hear you okay can you hear me now oh i can hear you now okay thank you um so i would prefer this evening if you refer to me just as jennifer lavity and um at this point in time um i will just hold for any questions that the planning commission has and reserve a right to speak at the end please okay thank you jennifer are there any uh questions for the applicant from the commission i do have one if i could go first again go ahead so uh jennifer um can you comment on uh the precise history of the stock uh we know from the packet that uh there is information aerial photos suggesting that uh adoc was in place since 1985 uh but there has been uh the in the in the packet uh particularly in the comments from the dock maintenance professionals indications that uh the dock was certainly repaired and maintained and perhaps enlarged or expanded um do you have a precise timeline that you could share with us on in particular the footprint of the dock when were any changes to the footprint of the dock made to your knowledge um yes uh thank you commissioner um the earliest aerial photo that is part of the city of shorewood's permanent file relating to this property is dated april 1985 and then the earliest um hennepin county aerial image is dated 1989 um the current house was built at the address at 2000 in the year 2000 my husband and myself moved in in 2010. at the time we moved in in 2010 there was a dock in the backyard um there are neighbors um who are very familiar with the house as it was built in the year 2000 in fact a neighbor who performed work on the home itself and was familiar with the landscaping and the backyard work and um her statement indicates that the doc was in existence in the current location in the year 2000 so there is a statement to that point prior to the year 2000 um there are the aerial photos um the dock itself um we we had the rear end of the dock um that is located the furthest point from the shoreline began to sink and we hired professional dock installers and um two different companies came and performed repair work lifting up the end of the dock the dock was not removed from the water at that point mud plates were placed under the footers and the mud place plates are a tool that is commonly used in the dock installation industry when they have a location that's considered substandard soil and at that point in time we did add the second boat house which is on the north side of the dock upon the advice of the installers we simply located it where they recommended installing it i don't know if that answered all your questions commissioner and if not um i would like to clarify if you have any other questions yeah just uh because i think what's most relevant is the footprint of the doc whether uh the width and the look and you know the the footprint itself the maintenance of a dock happens all the time um but so i'm looking at exhibit e which is aerial imagery from 2004 which is uh two years prior to the relevant code section being adopted uh restricting um the the footprints of docs and what i'm seeing on the aerial photo is that it has uh from the aerial photo at least uh the same footprint as it currently has is that correct or not um no that's incorrect it it appears the same however this docs section on the most northern side or in other words if we're talking about exhibit e the docs section closest to the arrow which has been added for emphasis um that section did not exist at the time that we purchased the home so although it looks similar to our current dock the um section that is located on the north side of the dock was added to the section that exists in exhibit e on the south side so the the dock on the south side is in the exact same position it has been in all of the exhibits the the footers or the um pipes that lead down to the footers have not been removed from that portion of the dock and that portion was added in 2012 is that correct no the portion of the dock that i'm referring to where the footers have never moved is the south side of the um dock that is the um the side that has been in existence at least since 1985 the north side of the dock looking at exhibit e which is the one closest to the arrow added for emphasis that portion was added in 2012. okay thank you thank you just want to clarify why is it in the picture from 2004 if it was added in 2012 um that was a did it get removed and then re-added portion that was um belonged to the former homeowners and uh that portion did not exist when we bought the home okay and is that within eight feet of the the shoreline on that side of the dock to be honest i don't know and commissioner rydell just brought up a very good point it's not the shoreline it's the ordinary high watermark and um that's right now hard to determine where it is due to the fact the lake is down several feet due to the drought conditions from last summer all right um let's bring this back to ms linda can you can you comment on whether or not the north portion of the dock is in violation there are two violations um the the entire section on the front there that the main dock goes out that entire front section is in violation it ranges from about one foot from approximately the shoreline to four feet from the shoreline we do not have a survey with the ohw the ordinary high water level for lake minnetonka according to the watershed is 929.4 and based on the surveys that were in the packet it is a little bit tricky but we think it's about one to four feet uh from the ohw where eight feet is required so fortunately we're talking on both sides of uh where you you enter the dock there's the south side on your left and the north side on your right both sides are uh close that's correct okay thank you for clarifying that any other questions for the applicants jennifer when were you first aware that the doc was not in compliance um we received notice of the violation this past fall uh october i'm not exactly sure the date give me one moment um that's fine it was in october yes so you don't you had no knowledge of that when you bought the house or or anything before that time correct in fact we had the professional doc installers come and um we had them install the addition to the dock and prepare perform the repair work based on their professional opinion so we relied on the professionals that we hired in this matter all right so any more questions for the applicants well since we have the applicant i guess the same question and i think it's appropriate that i post to the city attorneys um that the um the status of this dock is it existed um adoc existed prior to the modern code ordinance uh being put into effect um and uh what we were just discussing is relevant because there were modifications made to the doc after the modern code ordinance was put into effect um but in this case the legally non-conforming argument hinges upon the use of the doc can you comment on that um i'm sorry commissioner do you want me to comment on the use of the doc what we use it for or well but i think it's appropriate to ask you if you think this is a legally uh non-conforming structure or not or if that's clarified we're only talking about variances but um just to clarify because i really do think this is relevant that um a variance based upon a legally non-conforming structure is different than a variance that is simply based upon an otherwise fully conforming uh situation here and so i guess what i'm suggesting is there the existing doc that existed prior to 2006 i think would qualify as legally non-conforming and then i think that the modifications that were made afterwards might not and so those might be the basis of the variance is that the argument that you're making to counsel or to us first and then to counsel um that was the the thought process that i went through when i prepared the application for a variance we have a one dock that has been in existence for over 30 years and a newly installed dock however in the alternative that that argument did not um uh uh um succeed that is also why i sought a variance i do feel the requirements of a variance as set forth in our city code are met in this situation and i do feel a variance is appropriate in this situation okay thank you all right thank you jennifer any more questions for the applicants uh yes i do chair maddie go ahead mr um jennifer there are two aspects to the variants that you're requesting and when we make our recommendation i'm going to assume that we'll discuss each of them separately my question to you is are they in your mind tied together meaning that a variance on the um seven inch wide i'm sorry seven yes seven inch seven foot wide um portions of the dock is separate or is contingent upon also getting the variance from remain from not having to move it beyond the high water uh ordinary high water mark um although they are treated in one application for a variance request um they are two distinct issues um i think that um the issues stand um separately so i can assume that if one were approved and the other was not approved that would be that would not um dampen your use of the dock or would not be an unsatisfactory outcome for you um commissioner i didn't say that um it would hamper the the use of the dock and um i would i it would hamper the safety of the dock because the um the dock itself by hugging the shoreline and not meeting the eight-foot requirement is the safest possible um out uh outline of the dock as stated by two doc professionals and in both of their opinions they feel extending it out further could result in an unstable dock situation versus leaving it where it has been also on the second issue the um two doc catwalks that put together exceed the four feet that's also a safety issue because it allows full access of the boat from either side on the newly installed dock and from the one side on the original dock that it is attached to so i i do feel this is a safety issue relating to both aspects of this variance request thank you all right any more questions for the applicant or shall we move into public testimony i have one more question so eight foot catwalk was it eight foot when you installed the second boat house um pardon me commissioner eggenberger could you please restate that i just didn't hear sure the eight foot catwalk was that eight feet when you installed the second boat house or was it shorter than that before you installed the second boat house the installation of the second boathouse caused it to be um the seven foot width the um before the installation of that boathouse um it was not that that with um i would also like to point out that in the opinion of um the doc installers and my neighbors extending the dock out into the lagoon hampers the um the traversability of the lagoon itself because obviously the structure is taking up more um water space and also we do run the risk as indicated in the dnr permits and the attached exhibits relating to the dredging the um a valid dnr permit was obtained and channels were dredged to each of the properties including mine and it is possible that moving the dock backwards could place it in the dredged channel um which definitely would make it more unstable and uh more difficult to secure in a safe manner if i may follow up on that um so in the application packet in discussing uh the the variance application much of the argument or if nearly all of the argument centers on what you've just been describing uh the professional opinion that it that extending or moving the doc further out might be problematic there isn't much that describes the basis for the variance for the double width um and uh could you comment on that just uh in the packet in terms of the practical difficulty of not having a dock with a double width in the center there isn't much that said can you comment on that um it is just uh that is the way it was configured and installed by the professional dock installers they installed it that way um as i said for safety of access to the boat um and you know it it um again we just relied on the advice of the professional installers when we hired the second boatlift to be put on and um i'll stand for any other questions no further questions for me thank you um actually i think i misspoke i meant um boat house not boat lift thank you commissioner thank you jennifer any any other questions from a commission all right seeing none we're going to move this into a public input so anyone who wants to speak to this issue may we're going to be limiting it to uh three minutes and i'm just going to beg everyone to try to keep the three minutes try not to repeat too many times and remember these uh we're all neighbors here uh some of the letters i already have read um there's some emotional um just please be decent no need for character assassinations let's um let's get out all the facts that we need so we can make an informed decision with that let's open it up to the public input again please keep your comments to three minutes and uh use the raise your hand function which is under uh reactions uh raise hand and we'll let director darling i think manage muting and unmuting oh and uh one thing i did forget to say is we do need your real name and street address uh for uh to take any input or comments chairman i see one person with their hand raised identified as jeff cameron all right mr cameron uh on youtube and you can [Music] tell us what you want hello my name is jeff cameron i live at 27 695 island view road just up the street from this property and uh this is a pretty clear case of no variance allowed um she had uh one slip in 2006 it shows on exhibit f the summer of 2006. the code was changed in october of 2006 just after this picture was taken in 2015 another exhibit exhibit i in her package shows the two docs she added substantially added another slip and widened the center section she's arguing that she can't make the dock longer but she doesn't have to make the dock longer what she has to do is move those parts that are parallel to the shore out and it effectively makes her slips shorter but that's not the fault of the city that she chose to make it that way and you know if the commission believes that maybe just the new stuff that was added in 2012 and her experts even have evidence in their uh written testimony that shows that they installed the dachshund that that extended her expansion in 2012. um it it doesn't affect the length of the dock and you know she talks about the center portion being seven feet wide and that it's a safety hazard to have a three and a half foot dock standard dock sections are three and a half to four feet and people put boats on either side of those docks all the time so it's not a substantial hardship to have a three and a half foot dock most people on the lake have that so there's no reason why changing the width of the center section meets the criteria that she's set out by her expert testimony saying that she can't lengthen the doc all right thank you mr cameron yep is there anyone else who would like to speak to remember to raise your hand uh through reactions sure we have uh christine sanchogram who would like to speak all right go ahead to ms sandra very good yep we can hear you my name is christine sanchgren i live at 277 5 island view road and i'd like to first of all respond to one of the letters that was included in the packet for those participating in the call not all of the letters are publicly available at this time but i would like to address one of those and first of all i'd like to say i oppose the variant's request for mayor labadie in her doc violation violations she does not she did not follow the process of code compliance her doc does not meet grandfather requirements and under the planning commission's requirements of hardship she does not meet this hurdle the variance should be denied i do find it interesting that ms mcneil's letter was included in the variance request she appears to be responding to a news story not the variance that was included in the packet i'm not exactly sure why it was included but i do want to speak to some of the conjecture and and false statements that are included as a document in the in the packet first of all ms mcneil has the right to disagree with the complaints but her statement the access was on our deed as well as others and it was clear to all of us that a doc was not permitted is false i'm an owner of the property and her claim is unsubstantiated she and her husband are not registered with the county as easement holders nor have the owners of this property been presented with legal proof of their easement additionally we have affidavits from an easement holder and an aerial photo from the 1970s that refutes miss mcneil's claims that there's never been a dock on the property in addition her comment that it's beyond odd that docs that have been on the lake for years are now under investigation is irrelevant if someone purchased a home in the neighborhood that was found to have a code violation the home would have to be brought up to code prior to sale would ms mcneill's belief that it was beyond odd for it to be corrected since it had been in the neighborhood for years even be worthy it's not up to her opinion it's what's required by code ms mcneil's claim that there's been a dock on the property since the early 2000s which mayor labadie cited earlier is additionally irrelevant no one including the current owners disputes this fact but there is a dispute about whether or not the doc was changed and i was disappointed to hear that the consultant did not even note that in her presentation because of that that does not meet requirements for grandfathering and that does affect the variance request i would like to say that when false narratives are shared in the neighborhood it it provides you know unneighborly activity and this is an example of something that was included in the packet that is irrelevant and it should be withdrawn lastly i would say that mayor lavity's doc there's no legal way that it should be granted of variance her position as mayor for this variance request should be agnostic we are all citizens in this community and no one including mayor labadie should be an exception to meeting the code requirements in fact if the planning commission chooses otherwise they are admitting to special treatment to certain members of this community and not treating all members consistently under the code requirements thank you thank you mrs santagon looks like mr sandra grin has his hand up should we um unmute him next there uh gee we should be able to hear you know great thanks guys uh good evening shorewood planning commission and citizens my name is gee sanchez i live at 27725 island view road i wrote a letter in opposition to the city's practice providing special treatment to certain residents while dealing with others have it heavy-handedly it is important that sherwood's code enforcement process processes are not arbitrary or capricious today shorewood zoning enforcement process seems selective and subjective in addition to the letter i submitted i would like to pose the following questions what is the purpose of the rules that we're looking at here is it safety health welfare understanding this is important second if we grant this variance shouldn't we question whether these rules should exist at all when would the city actually enforce these rules third why does shorewood have any docket regulations at all after all shorewood taxpayers pay for the city's membership in the lmcd a government institution whose purpose is to harmonize the rules on lake minnetonka why do we need another full layer of special rules for shorewood lakeshore perhaps abolishing shorewood's dock restrictions is the solution in place of a variance this would solve many problems for the city and residents how can the city justify punitively dragging two families through the criminal and civil court systems over the last five years while at the same time allowing cities officials to violate the code through variances and non-enforcement how can these same city officials who do not adhere to the code turn around and enforce the same code on others clearly sherwood's rules only apply to certain residents the blunt enforcement process felt by the common resident is very different than the process afforded the privileged and politically connected shorewood zoning enforcement should not be political it should be based on the facts and the law moreover residents who stand up to the city and disagree with the status quo are shut out smeared and denied a seat at the table for me showered governance feels much like an oligarchy not a democracy in consideration of all these factors and more this variance request should be denied as a first step for reforming our city government in the direction of equal treatment under the law for all shorewood residents thank you thank you mr sandra girl [Music] all right uh has anyone else would like to speak please um digitally raise your hand through the reactions button we have a hand raised from um mr mr davis please give us your your full name and street address and let us know what you want us to hear oh we're not unmuted yet hold on one second well uh there you go we should be able to you know oh good can you hear me we can hear you thank you this is marty davis i live over on edgewood and birch bluff here in shorewood and i wanted to listen in tonight because i've been watching a lot of this rhetoric over the past couple years and i'd speak to it in a couple areas i think it's obvious that jennifer's doc should be uh grandfathered in it's it's it seems sensible and obvious that it uh complies to those parameters if you will and what to what bothers me and i wasn't going to speak until mr and mrs sanchez did and said what they said is that this is a you talk about false narratives if we ever have a platform where we want to talk about what went on on that dock that they keep putting in the middle of all this stuff i'll lay out the facts and they won't be opinions and if that happens and it should happen and gee has come to see me a couple times and i've told him and he knows him and i told him he and he and he stands too far from the truth in his representations this sour grapes to go after a mayor like this it's punitive to her decisions to do her job and that's all she's tried to do along with a lot of other people down there that i've seen indicted unfairly in rather aggressive conversations at the city meetings so this is sour grapes it's an effort to to peck at this thing because they didn't get what they want and if the truth gets known about what went on in that doc next to me down there at howard's point they've been deceitful and decisive and they're the ones who've cost the city caused the city to have to waste taxpayer money on such nonsense so i uh i would love to speak to that i spoke directly to them very respectfully they know how i feel they know i know the facts all you have to do is call brad nielsen in and have him tell you what went on with that property down on the road and the neighbors letters that have been written in those people haven't been informed of the truth that's all they're just being neighborly and they don't know the truth so to take a public official who sacrificed her time and her efforts for very little money and then get punitive with her over i didn't get my sucker is is is very you talk about unneighborly it's it's it's remedial behavior and so with that i have said my piece i thank you for your time and i look forward to visiting the other issue which is the real issue here when that when the proper platform allows for it and i have decided we we will talk about it in full at that time and some people around town need to understand what really went on and how how noble city officials have been throughout that whole process thank you for your time thank you mr davis all right um and just we're going to try to avoid um responding to other people's statements so uh maybe interested more clear about this everyone will get to speak once um it looks like we've got um two people who haven't spoken yet that do have their hands up um so let's uh director darling go ahead and choose one of them to speak next second is retunno you should be unmuted hi um thank you for listening um i live at 5525 howard's point road and my name is mary rotuno i am just here to um support um the variants and the request uh from jennifer labadie and david labadie um they went through the proper channels in my opinion um i believe that there was no malicious intent and that they did not receive any special treatment i believe that this has become a personal issue in our community uh that has gotten out of hand and the personal attacks on our mayor and our council have been um downright childish um so i just want to speak my mind and say you know i do support the variance and appreciate your time and attention all right thank you mr tunno all right move on to ms donahue is next we'll get you unmuted then we can hear you oh almost try that again there we go should be able to hear you hi my name is mary borgeson actually mary bridget donahue borgeson um i've been watching this issue go along and you've talked about excuse me your address please oh i'm sorry 5485 grant lorenz wrote i've been watching this go along and there have been some discussions about whether it's legal whether the doc was legal or not and whether it whether you have variance before you um bring a doc into compliance and um i i'm not attacking the mayor but what i'm saying is is that in a position of power um whether it's legal or whether it's ethical it's always good to take the high road and not be hypocritical i'm not calling they may are hypocritical but we've all been guilty of hypocrisy at some point or another because you want something so badly that you can't see the conflict and um the doc issues in this community have become a really hot button issue and i'd suggest that mayor labrady bring her dog in compliance first and then ask for a variance it might be a sacrifice on her part but it would be a much better look ethically that first you bring make it legal then you ask for a variance and i'm of an age where we're very lucky to have a gender diverse um city council and mayor but when i graduated from high school you couldn't get a loan as a woman so our mayor and our two council persons are leaders in our community and are an example for other young women in our community and i think you should hold yourself to a higher position and possibly do yeah we can all decide that yes it's a dock i mean we're not talking it it's a dock on a lake it would be a much better look and not be so divisive if it could just be brought into compliance and i would ask that the planning commission um maybe point a better path and um i don't see um attacking the sanctities because they have firm beliefs is really appropriate thank you for listening all right thank you just reset nice work on the three minute mark that was almost exactly three minutes all right uh who else would like to speak tonight please uh who hasn't spoken before please raise your hand through the reactions button see no one else who has not already spoken i do see chris uh rotuno and ellen yellsley let's start out with mr rotuno i think he was there first thank you so much i'm sorry about that hey just name it yeah chris rotino 5525 howard's point road um guys i this has been fascinating tonight i think it's probably the longest variance meeting you guys ever had so i appreciate them to put up with this this really comes down to really just common sense here and you guys are all looking at a picture uh from a dock it's pretty much looks better than any other dock on that whole day i know that because i parked next to it every year until last year and and so did uh some of the people who spoke tonight illegally and so i i want to point out something here i i think our our mayor is being persecuted for well i guess i i don't want to go there because i was instructed not to talk about all these other issues but i think everyone knows what the elephant in the room is here so i would encourage the [Music] commissioner and and staff to not treat this like you're dealing with the mayor but treat it like a normal citizen because this is common sense here and if we all look at what we're really talking about tonight this is nothing that is hindering anyone else and i will tell you right now that it might not sound like a big deal to move that dock out a few feet but the way that bay is configured you won't be able to get a dock excuse me a boat through and i think we all know now that there's also two other homes in that uh marina or or bay that uh is gonna cause a lot of complications the fact that these people don't have any uh issue or involvement in this bay anymore and they still are fighting against the mayor is obviously just an attack on the mayor and in our city council and and for their own personal reasons but i think we should all use our common sense don't punish our mayor because she won an election by a landslide that is ridiculous thank you all right thank you mr rotuno all right i believe uh mr yelsey is next can we get him unmuted will i reset this switch this is alan yelsey oh we can hear you go ahead i love that address also i live at 26335 peach circle and my interest is in the integrity of government and i first want to comment that i do appreciate the planning commissioners the questions you asked were insightful and fair and make me feel good that you're trying to explore this in a a reasonable manner and trying to protect the integrity of the whole process and the integrity of the city is at stake here so we do have a mayor in the middle of an issue that she shouldn't have been in if she had followed the code and was compliant with the code and we now are in the situation where you the planning commission and others need to hold her accountable as any other citizen and so i encourage you to hold her accountable just like everyone else without any favoritism and from what i have seen in terms of variances and code violations in the past i i see the city being fairly strict on those and i think the process that you've used with other people should be followed here and i also am absolutely um very disturbed that uh the other parties some other parties have been persecuted for doing something that was compliant with code while in this case clearly there is non-compliance with code so for the integrity of government because the mayor is in the middle of this it would be very good for the mayor to accept the code violations and repair or change whatever she needs to so that she is compliant and the hardships that she's mentioned they may or may not be accurate they don't sound accurate to me in that um they seem like technically and engineering-wise she could easily adopt some modifications to make her docs appliance and still maintain a dock and for her privileges so i do agree this is a city that should not be for the rich and wealthy and influential it should be a city for everyone and i appreciate the commissioners taking doing their duty and figuring this out in a way that makes some sense so thank you for your time all right thank you mr yelzy all right is there anyone else who'd like to speak again raise your hand under the reactions button for anyone who hasn't spoken yet all right if you're having trouble um and you haven't spoken uh keep trying to figure out how to raise your hand otherwise we'll bring this we'll close the public input portion of our meeting that's uh let's see 8 13 p.m we'll bring this back to the commissioners to discuss um and hopefully frame a motion one way or the other commissioners what uh what are you thinking so perhaps i can go first um and i think to some extent i'm reiterating the point that i made in the earlier questioning here here's my thinking that the uh existing doc the doc that existed uh at least partially in its current configuration prior to the adoption of the code is pivotal here so because there was much discussion in the comments um of the residents about uh you know whether a variance should be granted um let me again i started to frame this but let me uh frame the following analogy so supposing there is a non-conforming lot we have many in short but this is perhaps a lot that's too small perhaps regularly shaped for the given zone and there was a house that existed on that lot prior to um the code being adopted restricting the setbacks and uh other criteria for building on that lock so then it would be a legally non-conforming house and the owner could continue to live in that house could even rebuild uh on exactly the same footprint with no variance required furthermore if the applicant wanted to modify the house for instance put on an addition he or she would also be permitted to do that so long as the addition didn't increase the non-conformity of the structure but there are many situations and in fact in the planning commission this is perhaps the most common case that we consider where somebody with such a property and with such a house wants to do something that's quite reasonable for instance put out a new deck now putting on a new deck to that house would in fact increase the non-conformity and so they're not permitted to do so without applying for a variance the variance uh process is appropriate in that case and again it's unique circumstances that um dictate whether the planning commission recommends approval and the council uh approves such a variance so here we have a situation where there was uh a dock an existing dock partly in its current configuration that existed prior to the code being adopted that restricted such docs and subsequent to that there were changes made to the dock hence the need for a variance and in that context further information which we are not only allowed to take into account but must take into account is that the current applicant uh purchased the property with the dock in place and based upon good faith uh made modifications to the doc unaware of the code restrictions after all this happened ten years ago um and that is something we can take into account in our deliberations all told uh it would seem to me that the grandfathering in of the doc the legal non-conformity of part of the doc and then uh the changes made to the doc presumably without a knowledge that they were violating the code which means that a variance is appropriate and perhaps other commission members can comment on this the notion that the planning commission would never recommend approval for any kind of variance of this type i think is false that we consider different cases and each case is unique there is no concept of a precedent when it comes to a variant each case is unique on its merits but on its merits the variance here clearly crosses the threshold of being reasonable again based upon the fact that there was an existing dock in place there and uh the notice of the code violation is being brought forward 10 years after the the last modification so further discussion on that please all right anyone else want to give your your thoughts um commissioners uh i want to set that aside for just a second say something first of all because i i need to there was an implication that that if i choose to vote for approval of this variance or against approval of this variance that i'm doing so because of some agenda that i have or political agenda and i have never done that i vote for things because i think they're right or they're wrong and i intend to do that in this case um so i just wanted to say that as far as this variance um um i think it's reasonable i agree wholeheartedly with mark what he just said he laid it out very well i um i think it's just uh uh common sense that that this variance um was applied for when when the applicant found out they weren't in compliance they thought it was the best venue to take in order to make it compliant by getting a variance and um i think they've met all the criteria thank you commissioner eggenberger looks like we do have a hand raised on somebody who hasn't spoken before um being this a digital platform we're going to go back to make sure that everyone who does want to say something is heard by us so um can we unmute iphone 2 and figure out who that is formally reopen the public comment yep yeah so it's a 819 will reopen public comments just for this one person that will will give the benefit of the doubt that uh they're just fighting with zoom hi there again okay we can hear you now tell us your name and uh address and let us know my name is k mcneil and i live at 5620 howard's point road and i do apologize it did take me this long to even figure out how to raise a hand i have absolutely no technical knowledge whatsoever but since my name was brought up by one of my neighbors i just felt that i should be heard and all of this for me has been based on right and wrong and i do or did have deeded access i've been told tonight that i don't but we do and i just feel that um what mr davis and mary and and others have stated that this is this has gone on too long this is a personal vendetta against a mayor that we are very fortunate to have i mean this young mom and attorney that is willing to give her time to help this wonderful city that we live in you know i don't want to play that he said she said either but being that my name was brought up i just wanted it out there that i wrote a letter based on what i knew of the doc of having taken care of it for the the owner as well as just being grateful for these people that stand up and fight for shorewood for the right things and i've watched that little patch of property with history that other families have come in and tried to put docks on they've rolled docks in and rolled docks off now i've been called a liar i've been you know publicly shamed i i'm a grandma i love the marina we're fortunate that we have mr davis that has brought this wonderful manager into our neighborhood marina and all these people in this on this sweet street we love it here we don't need any more nonsense let these people do their jobs you know let the city perform what they need to do don't don't do this anymore put it to rest i don't know about the legality of it i don't want to know my whole position was let's support our mayor and do what's right and i support her a hundred percent and her counsel and everybody that's working up there for us as cities people and i approve the variance thank you thank you all right we'll close back down the the public input portion uh on although yeah within 20 seconds or three minutes thanks for that um see here it's 8 23 we'll close that back down and bring it back to the commission for discussion and um we'll sculpt a motion here coming up here maddie i'd like to register my opinion mr huskins from what i've heard tonight and what i've seen in the packet i think it's clear that there's been a dock there for a long period of time and regardless of whether or not there were two slips or one slip what i think i'm seeing in the photographs that's consistent over that entire period of time is the location close to shore of the extension along the shoreline um i have to believe that there's some purpose and reason behind that why the duck would have been constructed that way initially uh granted in 2006 the code changed but from 2006 to 2010 the aerial photographs do not show any change whatsoever that i can see with regard to the proximity of that portion of the dock to the shoreline in the packet we saw two doc experts express their opinion about the reason for leaving that structure in that place and um i i for one am not knowledgeable about docs but if people have been in the business for as many years as they have been i'm willing to listen to their expertise the the difficulty here is for me is that the time a timely uh variants would have been would have been applied for at the time of the extension of the dock to create that second slip but i'm also persuaded that the city didn't do anything to notify through inspection when that when that deeds transferred um to the owner i take the i take jennifer's uh statement at face value that the first that she learned that she was not compliant with the 2006 code was when she received a violation notice um like commissioner rito i'm struggling not to take into account the uh running with the property of a legally non-conforming structure as i think this doc was at two in 2010 but nonetheless uh here we are i also asked earlier this evening whether or not there was any legal prohibition of approving variances retroactively and our city attorney basically said there was no legal constraint against doing that so when i take everything into a consideration and review the applicant's variance application i feel very uh very comfortable in approving the variations or the very the variances excuse me yeah i'll i'll say my piece i have struggled with this one um you know it i know jennifer wants us to not reference her as an elected official but we don't have that luxury and we always need to make sure that especially our elected officials and people like me get held to a high standard but at the same time um had the doc contractor in 2012 came and requested this variance because they got a salty muddy pond i'm sure we would have given it to them [Music] um i mean even look there's not even a principal structure at the dock next door there's another dock that's right up against the shoreline um we do our best to work with homeowners to make them able to enjoy their property and this this doesn't seem uh like if any other person would have asked for this we would have given to them i've been doing this for nine years it uh that that's where i'm resting right now and i know it's it's tough but um let's get back to forming a motion i think all of us have kind of stated where we're at so i i can take a stab at this uh it seems that there are no staff recommendations here so uh i'd like to move that the planning commission recommend approval of uh the two variance requests at 5510 howard's point road the first to allow a dock greater than four feet in width and the second um for a variance to dock setback from the ordinary high water level high second all right the motion to recommend approval of both variants requests was made by commissioner riedel and seconded by commissioner huskins i just want to clarify from staff or maybe mr shepard by granting this variance we're not allowing the doc to be further enlarged we're we're saying that where it's at right now um is as big as it's going to get is that correct or does this variance allow mr chair more yeah we did have a staff recommendation um in the staff report to recommend approval um based on the findings in the staff report which would allow the doc to remain in its current configuration without expansion and trim eddie that's that's broadly true so like if the letter of a variant states that uh you know you're granted a variance to a setback it doesn't mean that then uh you can build something else within that setback it's it's specific to the application always i think that's implicit okay and it sounds like yeah the staff recommendations match that so there is a motion on the table any discussion on the motion from the commission all right uh seeing no more discussion on the motion we'll move into a roll call vote on recommending approval of the two variants requests commissioner eggenberger hi commissioner riedel aye commissioner huskins aye and chairman also votes in affirmative the motion passage four to zero all right thank you everyone uh for your participation that's actually what the government looks like so um let's move on to our next item on new business will be the urban farm animal city code amendments and discussion and i believe director darling is presenting this one you might ask for a five minute uh quality of life break before me that sounds great let's uh let's reconvene at um 8 35. thank you [Music] [Music] yes so which is okay thank you for unmuting me i i didn't know if the universal sign of unmute was a hamburger no but it's a very clever way to get my attention all right it is 8 35. this year looks like commissioner riedel is still out we'll give him oh there we are all right i think we can reconvene back onto our new business 5b urban farm animal city code amendments discussion assuming you've got a presentation so whenever you're ready director darling thank you chair and members of the commission as you may recall of the planning commission had previously reviewed several amendments to the urban farm animals regulations um based on the desire to remove some of the um the neighbor support for applications and other um amendments that um people had come to the matters from the floor in order to protest the city council did adopt standards for keeping care of urban farm animals or some adjustments to them rather but they did a staff to research additional standards to reduce the negative impacts and that is primarily involved with keeping birds on the owner's property um when the uh when the last court amendments were adopted there were several people in the audience that noted concerns with uh the noise and especially um what happened uh has happened over and over in their yards and their neighbors chickens escape and essentially uh ripped through no landscaping so um attached is some information in this memo that was sent to the council and some proposed draft language the language that was previously sent for the council explores several options for better containing chickens onto their owner's property or and other farm birds as well they include uh restricting lot size increasing setbacks um and and requiring chicken troops and enclosure areas to be fully enclosed the council had asked questions about wing clipping but staff did not recommend that uh we have regulations to require wings to be clipped for for chickens and as a practical matter it is just frankly too hard to verify catch and verify that the chickens have had their wings clipped so um what is before you this evening are some proposed language to simply keep animals contained on the farm or on the property where they are owned um staff are at this point requesting that you just discuss the amendments and provide any initial comments that you may have uh they will be reviewed at a public hearing in march more formally and um with advertisement to the public to allow for some public testimony so again for this evening looking for some uh initial comments thank you all right thank you director darling uh from the commission any comments on uh the draft limits i have uh two one is under definitions uh director darling why are we um referring to certain of these animals as both farm animals and foreign birds is there a reason why that definition requires that redundancy because um commissioner huskins and members of the commission uh the reason that i separated those two out is because um rabbits generally don't escape from their hutches and neither do these are a wholly different issue if i restrict um if i restrict to require all urban farm animals be fully enclosed that would defeat the purpose of keeping bees and it would provide unnecessary regulations for rabbits i guess what i'm asking though is can a particular species be in one or the other but not both just for clarifying yes yes ducks yeast turkeys chickens and guinea hens would be in both urban urban farm animal definition and urban farm bird definitions that's so we intend to regulate those animals the same but not bees and rabbits they'll have different regulations right right maybe it's clear to everyone else i'll move on it just seems to me that it doesn't help in the definition to have them appear under both farm animal and farm birds one is a subset of the others so urban farm is the largest urban farm animal is the larger set and urban farm birds is a subset of that and so i think it's useful because different places in the code if you want the larger set you can just use the word urban farm animal but if you want the smaller set you can just say urban farm birds okay i understood and if you'll permit me i have one other and that comes a little bit later it's in um sub division three four g and here it speaks to denying permit some consequences you've been a failure to pay application fee on any uh let's see on any condition set forth in any other permits granted by the city of sherwood so i'm just curious as to why we're um retro well why we would say because you defaulted on one condition for one permit it invalidates your ability to have a have a farm animal permit so it's subdivision b so the second green one yeah the applicant it's a g the applicant has failed to comply with any condition set forth and any other permits granted by the city of shorewood so that if that's under this section it it reads to me as if if i did not pay a fee to uh put an addition on my home or get a building permit or something that that would invalidate my ability to apply for a farm urban farm animal permit am i misreading that um no i can certainly see why why you would say that um i'll clarify that with the attorney i believe that that one was added in solely to be under this chapter any other permits under that in that same chapter okay if perhaps it's just clarifying the language a little bit i would i wouldn't want someone to be penalized because of some prior offense that had nothing to do with their application for a farm animal permit right i will take that under advisement and um compare that just more questioning on that particular language thank you so as i read through these just looking for feedback i've got some really great chicken owners uh next door and the next property over um and this ordinance seems to be written in response to the worst chicken owners limiting how many chickens you can have and things like that and i don't want to burden good chicken owners because of the acts of a few which is just kind of my general reaction to this code even you know reducing the number so what is it four if you're um smaller than a half acre yeah and then none after a half acre um and i i've seen i've seen i mean i don't know what their lot sizes are but i've seen good good chicken keeping on smaller lots um even the required netting over the top of the chicken run i mean unless you want to start feeding the great horned owls they're going to do that anyway i don't know why we need to require that i think marie had mentioned in prior meetings that chickens were escaping and there were complaints about escaping chickens and the number of wild turkeys walk through my yard it's astounding to be concerned with one escapes chicken seems like an overreaction i actually agree with the restriction of six or four that does seem low you know if you have one and a half acre two acre lot six chickens is uh is a fairly strict requirement i mean i know that the council gave some some direction on this may be more more conservative than the commission uh is thinking uh i don't know if council member cycle or um director darling can can chime in on what the conference's concerns were the council gave uh general direction to staff they did not supply any specific number of chickens so we talked about limiting chickens based on the size of the property they didn't give me a specific number they just generally said that that would be an acceptable option okay and yeah we do we don't want like a whole chicken operation about a thousand we don't want uh chicken farming to start happening this was intended to be an urban hobby yeah that is important do you have any data points with neighboring cities yes i don't have them with me this evening but i have provided them with previous um with previous [Music] i i seem to recall that you did uh director darling i just can't remember what that data said and whether or not it would be consistent with the six and four is consistent with neighboring cities yeah there are a few cities that do limited based on the size of the property and i can certainly provide that information for you at your next meeting what number are you thinking chair maddie i mean six seems like a lot to me you know and um for a home you know to have i i've seen it work well with with six chickens um on a small lot but again these are responsible uh chicken owners uh yeah i can see where people might disrespect their neighbors more so if they did have sticks but i think six just i don't know if you should limit down to four if you're less than a half acre i'd rather just have six total keep it simple yeah i would agree with that just how i don't know how many small lots we have in town that might run one number right [Music] we have several smaller properties that um have chickens and is it mostly smells or um trespassing of chickens that we're going to complain some trespassing of chickens and noise noises and not roosters though just right wouldn't always do chicken oh sure um i think some of the comments also came where there are situations where you have people who have chickens and there are multiple neighbors so you may have six chickens at one house but if the neighbor next door has six the neighbor next door has six um it becomes a little problematic i think that does exist in the city and i think this was to strike a balance for those who were concerned about escaping chickens the mess the smell and there were a number of people that showed up and um you know and wanting a little bit more uh restriction and guidance around people who do choose to keep chickens there was also some conversation about perhaps eliminating the number of permits or households that we do allow to have chickens so rather than it just being you know kind of an open-ended anybody can have chickens is there some discussion about perhaps limiting the number of chicken applications that we lay out in the city and then and or the number of chickens and or you know confining the chickens so that's what i recall the conversation um building around okay thank you councilmember cycle and they they do get they do get noisy um even though they're not roosters and we have some chickens near us and but it's only like once or twice a day i assume it's a feeding time they get excited you know they make noise it's not obnoxious but you do hear them stuff so they do make noise and commissioner riedel are you raising your hand or scratching your head uh a bit of both so my thoughts in response to uh councilwoman's cycle's suggestion is it is it seems to be problematic to for instance cap the total number of chickens then it would become like a chicken lottery uh who would get the right to have the next set of chickens if you were to limit it uh you know by acreage or by area i think better to deal with this with simple consistent rules limiting the number of chickens so that's a problem per uh per lot i have no experience with chickens so if uh people who do and it sounds like some of you do if six seems like a high number uh i i would support chair maddie's suggestion that no just keep it simple just everybody's entitled to chickens we might have complaints with some of the smaller lots that are exactly at a half acre that they are not allowed to have chickens or resentment perhaps and if six is a good number everybody's allowed to have six chickens and then ensure uh enforcement and i think uh dr darling done a great job kind of really reworking uh the requirements on good chicken husbandry thank you my wife is very amused that we keep talking about chickens so the recourse of a neighbor who would feel that they were disadvantaged because multiple families for multiple properties had chickens their recourse would be to file a complaint with the city with a what would they have to do in order to seek recourse if they are if they have a concern about how the chickens are being kept on a specific property chair huskins they would need to call staff and um it's formally asked for staff to inspect a property but if there were no violations found there's no other recourse but some of the complaints were around escaped chickens or odor or noise are those are those complaints something that the city would be able to fairly decide on whether or not that complaint was valid yes if we can if the chickens are out when we get there but if they're not making any noise when you're there yeah it's it's the same as a barking dog you run out and check and if the dogs aren't barking you go on to the next the next issue it's the same with chickens and what about odor same thing i haven't gotten any complaints about odor um i did get one for erosion um someone wasn't keeping uh the portion of their yard surfaced appropriately where they had chickens i would like something specifically about olga i like simplicity as well just capping the number and having permits um be available and not under lottery i just want to be careful that if if there is a legitimate reason for complaint that there be some mechanism by which the city would handle those in a way that would be satisfactory to the complaining neighbor i agree it does sound tough to enforce a lot of this and on a side note i did used to be an odor inspector for the city of minneapolis it's a short stint but um i wouldn't wish that upon anyone so um i mean we we want to find a balance of something that's enforceable and something that's simple but also something that protects adjacent homeowners so i guess uh director darling you're probably looking for some specific direction or what if you have any direction for me at this point otherwise i will um take the comments that i've received and incorporate those into a a draft draft ordinance for you to review our public hearing modified draft ordinance uh so the one thing that was uh specific for um quantitative was the number of birds can we get a feel for the rest of the commission what what the right number of birds is do we want to split it between areas of property or just have one flat rate for the the city just to give a little more guidance i think just one flat rate i don't i i'm not aware of any i haven't heard any compelling reason why there should be a difference between lot size um so i would go with a with a flat rate for every flat number for everyone are we leaning on six too small to be a farm but big enough to let you have a good supply of eggs i suggest six six for any lot size there are fairly strict setbacks here on the chicken coop so in a very small lot that could actually be the restriction that's um remind us director darling that it's a minimum of 30 feet from side property lines in a sense that restriction could preclude people on very small lots lots that are too small from having chickens uh yes that is a substantial increase from our current 10 foot step back i think especially with a 30-foot setback it's very reasonable to just say everybody is allowed to have six chickens so you just have to meet that that 30 feet restriction because if you are 30 feet from all neighbors that goes a long way towards mitigating any of the complaints people might have and just to clarify legal non-conforming conversation again people with chicken coops 10 feet off their property line right now if we move forward with a 30-foot modification what happens to them um this is not in the zoning ordinance um chicken poops are typically mobile so um when their permit expires and there is now a one-year expiration for permits that was approved um with the last uh amendments um so they will have to bring their their hoops into conformance the next time they apply for a permit or ask for variance there's no variance provisions in this section of code okay i can see that becoming a problem uh a lot of people have they've bought like sheds from home depot that are not easily moved to raise their chickens and store their lawn mowers in things like that um i don't know the best way to look into it with the attorney okay so all right well any other comments we'll keep on moving forward director darling do you think you've got at least something you can work off of from our conversation director darren you said at the start of this that rabbits were segregated out into his area because they they don't typically escape from their enclosure um i have not had complaints and we only have one rabbit hutch that's currently being kept in the city do some people don't um i grew up next to some people that had rabbits and they had an enclosure that they would let the rabbits run around in just like chickens would only the rabbits and they were constantly escaping from that enclosure because they would dig under it so when you said that that just brought that back they do escape they don't fly over the top though no underneath right yeah it could also be that uh you know then they just tend to disappear and there's not much complaining that happens with respect to escaped rabbits that's true coyote had a meal all right well let's move on we'll keep this meeting going here um to our work program and meeting schedule for 2022 are there any comments about the the work program that director darling provided us one thing was missing i believe we wanted to talk about minimum structure with requirements in residential areas we want so small houses on big lots basically um they i did mention that at the council meeting when you were reviewing the variants um when they reviewed your recommendations to the variants um i heard from at least one council member that they did not think with only one variance requested that those we didn't have any proof that those were actually forming a hardship for the community in general so i did not put that on your work program at this point [Music] you can certainly direct me otherwise or i'm not all right can you hear me now yes okay just had a little audio malfunction um all right uh did i miss anything uh during that are we um here maddie i mentioned to the rest of the commission that during the review of the variance request for the slightly smaller or narrower home than would otherwise have been allowed under the code i had mentioned to the city council that the commission had wanted to review the minimum requirements that are currently in the code and they had thought with only one variance request that we weren't showing that the minimum standards have are posing a hardship for a community-wide art show okay so just leave it with variances [Music] moving forward okay all right anymore um discussion of the work program no looks good commissioners are good with it all right do you want a motion or anything or should we just uh give you a verbal it looks good um generally i think you adopt your work program by motion all right do i hear a motion to adopt the work program as presented to us by director darling i move that we accept the 2022 work program in our packet all second then all right the motion to accept the work program for 2022 is made by commissioner riedel and segmented by commissioner huskins moving into a role called vote commissioner edenberger aye commissioner riedel aye mr huskins aye mr maddie also votes in the affirmative the motion passes for zero all right uh liaison volunteers for february and march uh do we have another council meeting yet this month that somebody's are any planning i guess the only thing would have been the 55 10 howard's point road when is that when you expect that to go to council yes i expect that to go to uh council on the 28th of february and i would need a volunteer to present that let me take that one um because that seems right so i'll take february i'll take march this was that uh commissioner yes but uh todd can i make a request uh so we have a baby on the way due april 1st could i take march instead so i don't uh have april may or june do you want to take march you want me to babysit both but but but could i take murphy that's that's fine mark okay let me tell you guys the reel's got march and then nuggenberger's got uh april i'll do um i'll do may hoskins has me and maybe miss sling i'm having surgery on april 21st but repair a shoulder yeah and if you run into problems i can do both so well i would prefer to do to do me okay all right so huskins has may riedle has march eigenberger has april maddie has february are we in agreement there all right and then one one announcement um i guess uh commissioner galt is uh not going to be with us for the next round we have a new commissioner coming uh when does the new term start uh director darling first of march first of march so our next meeting we should have a new commissioner and on that same game i would would announce that we are planning to hold the march first planning commission meeting virtually again and um after that it will be as the council decides on february 28th whether or not to extend the virtual meetings due to the pandemic or whether or not to return to in-person meetings but for march 1st we will be virtual virtual regular darling i'll be out of town so you don't have to um i won't be here to receive a mail package and don't leave it by the front door i'll just work electronically for that for that meeting right um moving on to old business there is none and um on to reports uh council member cycle uh would you like to give a report and see what the console's up to and left on youtube don't you love the zoom meeting there we go okay sorry about that um yes we council meeting last evening so really what was on the agenda um the first was really two planning items both of them were requests to have an extension of time granted to correct code violations at two properties within the city both of them were granted some additional time to bring their properties into um compliance the next were two items on an engineering and public works um calendar one we are continuing with the strawberry lane conversation so we did come to a conclusion and that we will have a 26 foot wide road and a six foot sidewalk and we've asked um a new resolution to be be prepared and brought back to us for the february 28th meeting because there's one area that we still are um in discussion around and it's on the south end of strawberry lane where the road would venture into the east side more than the west side so we're going to see if there's an opportunity to work with the people on the west side to grant us where we purchase some properties so that we can make it more equitable on that side so it's probably one area that we still are waiting for to see if it's even feasible so we've asked staff to engage conversation with those neighbors bring it back um at the end of february and we'll make a decision from there but the intent is to keep that project on schedule and for completion in 2023 but we're trying to work with the neighbors to make as many people as happy as possible and then we also i'm talked about the grant street drainage program or project i should say and we accepted the bid and awarded it on the contract which actually came in a little less than planned so that was good news and then under new business um we heard from our city clerk um sandy phone um some information on flexible work arrangements so we will be moving to that where we essentially already do that to a degree but this puts some parameters around it and a little bit more guidance for staff and then we also approved the american rescue plan act we did get some funds which were um applied towards actually on the east end of the city where we had some city water issues and we just accepted um the um uh we just put into motion that that's how those funds would be used and those were kind of the main things on the agenda um last evening and that's kind of my report do you have any questions and i want to thank all of you for your time this evening i know that these things can be kind of um difficult but thank you for comporting yourselves well and um dealing with everybody respectfully thank you councilmember cycle any questions for council i'll just say one uh i want to thank you and the rest of the council if anyone's listening anymore but the strawberry lane its council and staff have gone well out of their way to try to try to make sure that most people are happy with whatever comes out of that and i walk that road every school morning after i drop my kids off and then watch that i'm looking forward to the sidewalk but i i think um you've all extended yourselves quite a lot to try to keep the peace it's hard when um you are trying to you know make neighborhoods cohesive and um you know do the right thing for the most people within the city and be responsible as a leader in the city too so we'll see but we're gonna see what we can do to make sure that we make it as equitable as possible and make as many people as happy as possible and you know improve the city and improve safety in that quarter thank you for that for the work it's a big it's been a big issue a big thorn thank you yeah thank you all right what's uh in store for our next meeting which is in what two weeks it is in just two weeks um also last evening at the council meeting there was a work session to discuss uh election and campaign signage and non-conforming speech signs uh so as one of the items on your new business there will be a discussion of potential ordinance amendments related to campaign and election signage that will be some discussion with a public parent to be held later [Music] also on the next meeting agenda would be two public hearings one to discuss a uh some additional antennas being co-located on an existing monopole and that is a conditional use permit and the other item would be public hearing for amendments to the urban farm animal ordinance now is that in reference to the the mobile antenna right next to city hall or is there a different one just added that's a different one for that the other day yes uh they are um swapping out some antennas so they aren't doing anything that would um need to be reviewed under their original conditional use permit that is a different provider this would be a new provider under the [Music] this would be a new provider who needs a new conditional use permit in order to operate or to install their antennas on that same tower that's great i thought we'd already heard this but if it's a new provider that makes sense it's a new provider yes [Music] all right uh that brings us to adjournment is there anything else um staff or commissioners that we want to talk about or should we yeah i want to go back i'm sorry to uh council member cycle there was some discussion a while ago about broadband about uh we had some funds that maybe we were going to use towards broadband was is that true or where is that at if it is yeah i think maybe what you're referring to and you can correct me if this isn't accurate but there's another company called jaguar communications and i think they've recently changed their name but they they approached the city about um running internet services uh to residents within shorewood excelsior and tonka bay so kind of this side um of the lake so we actually asked about that a couple meetings ago so um i i my understand is that they should be um i don't know touching based at the public i would think in the next six months um but i don't know that i have any more specifics for you other than it's the intent for them to offer additional service to residents of excelsior shorewood and tonka bay okay is that what you're referring to i i'm not sure if that there was some talk about there was going to be some other internet providers who probably has yeah they already provide um service to um city hall and to the um public works area so it would be an expansion of that out and it would be an alternative for um residents in our area okay good thank you yeah i can ask um and be prepared to uh be a little more specific at the next meeting we did ask about that and you know what i've kind of forgotten now so um i'll get back to you yeah competition you're talking about fiber optic good i think that that's what you're referencing if i'm missing something um but it is the uh extension of fiber optic too people in shorewood tonka bay and excelsior yeah it was fiber optic that's it okay and that would come through that that company okay marie is there anything else you want to add and i apologize i completely forgot about the work session it's just getting late um and um with that sign ordinance you're probably gonna you know get some update with that but marie did a pretty good job of covering it and it's kind of a big conversation but there was some language around commercial versus political signs and some action needed to be taken due to some supreme court um decisions so we kind of broke it into one correcting um you know political and then there's a lot of questions about you know yard signs saying you know happy birthday or black lives matter blue lives matter so um just kind of upping um our policies and um ordinances around them so that'll be coming i'm sure across your work calendar at some point in the near future all right yep that's when we really want to get right so i'm happy to see all right uh let's just move into i do i hear a motion before adjournment i don't get re-adjourned a second commissioner huskins won that one motion to adjourn by commissioner eggenberger we'll move right into a vote commissioner eigenberger aye commissioner riedel aye commissioner huskins aye here maddie also votes aye we are adjourned at 9 16. thanks everyone for your time thank you everyone good night you