The URL can be used to link to this page

03-06-12 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 6 MARCH 2012 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE DAVIS (Feb) ______ GENG (Jan) ______ HASEK (Open) ______ HUTCHINS (Apr) ______ CHARBONNET (Open) ______ GARELICK (Mar) ______ MUEHLBERG (Open) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 21 February 2012  1. SITE PLAN REVIEW Applicant: Dan Krieter Location: 450 Lafayette Avenue 2. SUSTAINABILITY – LOW MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING 3. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION – GENERAL PROVISIONS 4. APPOINT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2012 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 9. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  10. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:12 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for February 21, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 7/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  February 8, 2012 Arnst moved, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2012, as presented. Commissioner Arnst took a moment to recognize Christine Freeman, the Recorder who prepares the minutes, for the amazing job she does with capturing the conversations. Hutchins seconded. Motion passed 7/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING ALLOWABLE FRONT-YARD ENCROACHMENTS Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a March 12, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that during November 2011 the Planning Commission considered a request for a front yard setback variance for a property located along Fatima Place. The applicants wanted to build a front porch that would encroach into the front yard setback area. Because the request did not meet the standards for granting a variance the Commission recommended Council deny it. The City Council considered this item during its November 28, 2011, meeting and denied the variance request. Nielsen then explained that the applicants raised some issues with regard to older homes and how entry features are treated. Those issues generated consensus among the Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers that the Zoning Code (the Code) should be reviewed to determine what, if any, changes CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 2 of 9 should be made in terms of allowable encroachments in the front yard setback area. The Commission discussed proposed amendments to the Code during its January 17, 2012, meeting. The Commission suggested adding a definition for a portico. It reads “Portico – A covered walkway in the form of a roof supported by columns or pillars, usually attached to a building, and leading to an entrance of the building.” The Commission also suggested amending the Code to allow ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act to encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained for a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling in any residential zoning district. Nielsen went on to explain the amendment includes the following provisions for a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to May 19, 1986. A one story enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. A one story open portico may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet provided: the length of the portico shall not exceed fifty percent of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and that the area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60 percent open. Nielsen noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a draft amendment to Shorewood’s Zoning Code as it pertains to allowable front yard encroachments. A definition for portico was added to Section 1201.02 Definitions. Section 1201.03 General Provisions Subd. 3.c.(2) was replaced almost in its entirety to allow for ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons to encroach into setbacks, and to allow for porticos on older homes. He also noted the variance request referenced earlier in this discussion would fit within this proposed amendment quite well. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. Don Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place, noted he and his wife had submitted the application for the front yard setback variance referenced earlier. He stated that per the discussion during the November 28, 2011, City Council meeting it is his understanding that this amendment would allow for them to build their proposed portico without a variance. Director Nielsen stated if Council approves this proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Code a variance would not be required to construct the portico. Mr. Gloude asked if they would have to wait until the Ordinance is published before construction can move forward. Nielsen stated that technically yes, but often times Council is asked for permission to issue the building permit before the Ordinance is published in the official newspaper for the City. th Mr. Gloude clarified that Council did not deny their variance request during its November 28 meeting. He and his wife withdrew their application that evening after Council discussion per Council’s th recommendation and followed that up with a written withdrawal on December 13. He stated during that meeting they were told that certain fees would be returned because they withdrew their request and that has not happened. Chair Geng suggested Mr. Gloude follow-up with Director Nielsen on that. Nielsen stated he thought the escrow was to be returned. Chair Geng thanked Mr. Gloude for his patience. Geng stated he thought this is a better solution for the City. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the largest required side yard setback the City has is 20 feet and that is on lakeshore lots. Nielsen stated the typical residential side CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 3 of 9 yard setback is 10 feet on each side. In response to another question from Hasek, Nielsen stated the smallest rear yard setback is 35 feet. Hasek questioned why someone might need to have a ramp extend 30 feet into a rear yard setback. Hasek asked if anyone else finds that problematic. Director Nielsen recommended that the encroachment into the rear yard setback for ramps be changed so that setbacks of not less than 20 feet shall be maintained. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code Amendment pertaining to allowable front yard encroachment subject to changing it to require a rear setback of 20 feet be maintained. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 2. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) – FINAL DRAFT Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the fifth, and hopefully final, draft of an amendment to Shorewood’s Municipal Code Chapter 704 that will establish rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. This draft includes the final two revisions recommended by the Planning Commission during its February 8, 2012, meeting. The Commission asked to see the final draft before it was sent to Council. Commissioner Hutchins stated Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(i.) states “Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations.” He asked if having more than the allowable number of animals means at the time the ordinance is approved. Director Nielsen responded it does. Hutchins asked if it needs to say that. Hutchins expressed concern that a person could buy more than the allowable after the ordinance goes into effect. Nielsen stated the phrase “at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance” will be added to that provision. Commissioner Arnst asked for confirmation that no one will be grandfathered in; everyone will have to apply for a permit. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the final draft of an amendment to the Shorewood Municipal Code establishing rules for the keeping of farm and other animals subject to amending Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(i.) to read “ Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, at the time of the adoption of this .” Motion passed 7/0. Ordinance shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING – ACCESSORY APARTMENTS Director Nielsen explained one of the topics on the Planning Commission’s 2012 work program is life- cycle housing. One potential aspect of this is what is referred to as “accessory apartments”. The City’s Zoning Code limits the number of dwellings to one per property for single-family residential zoning districts. The Code does not allow for accessory apartments in single-family homes. The proposed amendment would allow people to create an apartment within a dwelling. Allowing accessory apartments would address both ends of the life-cycle housing spectrum. It would support older parents moving in to single-family homes with their adult children, or adult children moving in with their parents. The concept of accessory apartments in single-family homes is not a new idea around the country. Cities in the eastern part of the country have been addressing this for 20 or more years. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 4 of 9 Nielsen then explained that after reviewing many accessory apartment codes staff has assembled a list of provisions that should be considered for any amendment to Shorewood’s zoning regulations. He reviewed a proposed definition for accessory apartment. It reads “A small apartment that meets the standards of Section _______ of this Code and is located within and is subordinate to an owner occupied single family dwelling. An accessory apartment shall not be considered to be a dwelling unit even if it allows fully independent living.” He noted that four of the zoning districts are for single-family dwellings only, and three are single and two-family dwellings. He stated if the accessory apartments were to be considered dwelling units there would end up being two-family dwellings in single-family districts. Nielsen emphasized that the apartment, like other accessory uses, must be subordinate to the principal use. He stated that at this time Staff recommends these be limited to an apartment within the existing single-family home. It should not be an accessory structure. A cautious approach to this is recommended. It represents a fairly drastic change by allowing more people into the various zoning districts. He explained some cities limit the square-footage size of the accessory apartments. Staff has chosen not to recommend that. There are very large homes in the City and someone may want to use an entire lower level of the home for such an accessory apartment. Staff suggests a percentage of the total square footage of the home instead. Nielsen stated Staff is suggesting that there be a public process and that accessory apartments be categorized as conditional uses in single-family residential zoning districts (R-1 and R-2). A public hearing would be involved. Neighbors within 500 feet would be notified of the application and how a request does or does not comply with the zoning standards. Staff recommends that accessory apartment provisions be placed in the Section 1201.03 General Provisions of the Zoning Code because it applies to seven zoning districts. Nielsen reviewed a list of provisions that are intended to generate discussion. They are as follows. “Subd. 22. Accessory Apartments. a. Purpose. b. Conditional Use. Accessory apartments shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-1D, R-2A, R-2B, R-2C and in the P.U.D. that allow single-family residential dwellings. c. Standards. Accessory apartments are subject to the provisions of Section 1201.04 of this Code. In addition, the following standards shall apply: (1) The accessory apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the accessory apartment be more than forty (40) percent of the building's total floor area nor have more than two (2) bedrooms. (This allows most if not all of the lower level to be used for an accessory apartment.) (2) The principal unit shall have at least 850 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory apartments shall have at least 500 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a bathroom and a living room. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 5 of 9 (3) No front entrances shall be added to the house as a result of the accessory apartment permit. (The intent of this is to try and ensure the house remains in character with the single-family neighborhood. It does not mean there cannot be a separate entry.) (4) An addition to the original building is permitted provided that the addition does not increase the floor area or volume of the original building by more than twenty (20) percent, and the addition will not alter the character of the building. (The purpose is not to make homes drastically bigger just to accommodate accessory apartments.) (5) The owner of the residence in which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy the dwelling unit itself or the accessory apartment. (6) Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons related by blood or marriage to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the owner by blood or marriage. (7) The owner of the single-family residence shall enter into a Residential Use Agreement with the City stipulating that the home will not be used except for single- family residential purposes and that the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood or marriage to the owner. Prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment the owner shall provide evidence to the City that the Residential Use Agreement has been recorded with Hennepin County. (8) A minimum of three off-street parking spaces must be provided, two of which must be enclosed. (Two spaces are currently required. It may be prudent to talk about some type of screening.) (9) The accessory apartment and principal unit must meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the Shorewood Rental Housing Code. (10) The building and property shall remain in single ownership and title and shall only have one mailing address. (11) Only one accessory apartment permit may be issued per detached single family home. Chair Geng stated he thought the first draft is very good. Commissioner Hutchins stated he and Commissioner Arnst have concern that Standard c.(6) does not allow for a full-time live-in caregiver. Director Nielsen stated it should allow for that. Hutchins then stated with regard to Standard c.(3) he asked if someone had a sliding patio door if that could be retrofitted into an entrance for a lower level accessory apartment. Nielsen stated that is allowable. Commissioner Arnst suggested Standard c.(8) be changed so that the third parking space isn’t on the grass. Director Nielsen stated that needs to be addressed in another area of the General Provisions section. Commissioner Hasek stated that would apply to hard surface coverage. Chair Geng asked how a situation where the property is already at the maximum impervious surface allowed would be handled. Director CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 6 of 9 Nielsen stated they will have to give up hardcover somewhere. Nielsen stated that is where some allowance for permeable pavers could factor in. Director Nielsen stated for most of the City’s zoning districts the driveways tend to be longer. Therefore, there should be room for the third vehicle. Commissioner Hasek asked what the City’s shortest front yard setback is. Director Nielsen responded 30 feet in the City’s normal zoning districts. There are some planned unit developments (P.U.D.s) where the setback is 20 feet. Nielsen noted the front yard setback is not counted as part of the parking area except in P.U.D.s. The required parking spaces have to comply with setbacks. A vehicle can’t be parked within 15 feet of the street surface. Hasek then asked if the garage floor area is considered part of the total floor area. Director Nielsen responded typically not. Hasek stated Standards c.(1) and c.(2) regarding square feet of area don’t seem to work together mathematically. The 500 square feet requirement is more than the no more than 40 percent of the original total floor area for smaller homes. Nielsen stated he will revisit those two standards. Hasek gave an example of how Standard c.(6) may be too limiting. A married couple move into the husband’s parent’s home. The couple gets divorced and the husband moves out. The former daughter-in- law continues to live in that house. The City shouldn’t care about that. He questioned why blood should factor into this situation. Commissioner Davis noted that earlier during this discussion Commissioners Arnst and Hutchins noted that the Standard doesn’t allow for full-time caregivers. Director Nielsen stated Hasek isn’t necessarily talking about a caregiver; just a person who is no longer legally a family member. Nielsen noted there will always be exceptions to things. Hasek asked if the City allows overnight parking on the street. Director Nielsen responded the City does and that it depends on the time of year. Commissioner Hutchins stated he doesn’t understand what Commissioner Hasek’s concern is about the square footage stipulations in Standards c.(1) and c.(2). Commissioner Arnst stated based on the square footage stipulations in those two Standards it will not work for any house with less than 1,350 square feet of total floor area. Director Nielsen stated one of the two Standards has to be adjusted. Nielsen then stated the provisions should not eliminate some of the smaller homes in the City. Commissioner Arnst stated during her second meeting, she thinks, as a Planning Commissioner she brought this topic up. During that meeting Director Nielsen had stated the City didn’t want to look like Kenwood. She thanked Nielsen for his change of perspective on this and for the terrific progress made on moving this forward. She noted this is something she wanted to see move forward before she stopped being a Planning Commissioner. Nielsen stated the City has chosen to have a different character for the community than many other cities; it isn’t better or worse just different. Director Nielsen stated accessory apartments are probably the City’s best means of getting to affordable senior housing and affordable housing in general. He noted there are a lot of young families that can’t afford to live in the City. Director Nielsen asked the Commissioners what they thought the neighborhood reaction to accessory structures would be. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Arnst stated in her neighborhood there are at least four homes where something like this is going on. And, there are at least four homes that have become rental properties. As long as people are quiet there is not a problem. She then stated residents in her neighborhood realize things are changing. Chair Geng stated the only issue he can foresee is parking; one being too many vehicles and/or run down vehicles. He and his wife had someone with a rundown car staying with them and some of his neighbors didn’t even like that car being parked in their driveway. Director Nielsen stated he will revise the draft amendment. He asked the Planning Commission if the life- cycle housing sub-topic of accessory apartments warrants its own public hearing rather than a public hearing for all Code changes related to life-cycle housing. Chair Geng and Commissioner Arnst stated they thought it warrants its own hearing. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS None. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated during the March 6, 2012, Planning Commission meeting there will be a discussion about low maintenance landscaping and natural landscapes. That topic of conversation ties to the GreenStep Cities Program sustainability goals. The March 20, 2012, meeting will be devoted to talking about the Smithtown Crossing study. Sometime in April there will likely be a discussion about a request for an interim conditional use permit for a property. Commissioner Hutchins asked if the Commission will appoint a chair and vice-chair during its next meeting. Director Nielsen stated if there is a full complement of Commissioners there will be. th Administrator Heck stated Council will interview applicants on February 27 and Council will consider appointments during its regular meeting that same evening. 8. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Planning Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 13, 2012, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Council Liaison Hotvet stated Councilmembers continually hear from residents about the speeding issue. Director Nielsen noted the volume of vehicles on Yellowstone Trail is very substantial. He stated he doesn’t know how people can speed there. He then stated that all the things that should be done to traffic calming measures on Yellowstone Trail already exist there. Council Liaison Hotvet stated having a trail CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 8 of 9 along there should change the drivers’ behaviors. Nielsen stated the City proposed building a trail to get pedestrians off the street but property owners, including Commissioner Hasek, fought it. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought it deserves a trail but it doesn’t make economic sense. Director Nielsen asked if cost is why most people don’t want a trail there. Hasek stated he thinks they don’t want a trail in their front yard. Hasek then stated he will gladly give the City part of his property for a trail. Nielsen asked how the property owners could argue both sides of this issue – it’s unsafe to walk but we don’t want a trail in front of our properties. Council Liaison Hotvet stated the City has to explain having a trail is a safe solution and it should change the behavior of drivers. Chair Geng stated perhaps the Planning Commission could have a public hearing about a potential trail along Yellowstone Trail. There could be an exchange of ideas with residents. Commissioner Hasek stated that although residents may not like the idea of having a trail in front of their property it is part of the larger system. It is part of an overall system that needs to be addressed. He then stated from his perspective the City will be stepping on property owners’ toes if a trail is constructed there and they won’t like it. Council Liaison Hotvet stated she hears Commissioner Hasek saying two different things. The property owners along Yellowstone Trail will not support a trail but the City needs to construct one. Hasek clarified he was just explaining what was happening. Hasek stated if a trail along Yellowstone Trail needs to happen in order for the road to be safe for “the community” he asked if Hotvet (as a Councilmember) would support building one. Hotvet said yes. Hasek stated probably if expense wasn’t a problem. He then stated the property owners would absolutely not be happy. He went on to state the current Councilmembers will lose every vote from residents living next to Yellowstone Trail if a trail is built. Council Liaison Hotvet noted she does not share Hasek’s perspective. She stated people always want to revert to saying it’s never going to work; it hasn’t worked in the past. She explained there are at least 20 residents who want a solution and the City can consistently say it has tried to get support for a trail. She stated there has been turnover in families. It is proven that property values go up because of walkability. She then stated people can choose to continue to have limited walkability in the City, noting she doesn’t support doing that. Director Nielsen stated the residents who live where the trail would go in front of their property are opposed. Council Liaison Hotvet asked where the leadership comes from to move forward with this. She stated if residents along Yellowstone Trail don’t want walkability then it’s probably time to move on to the next potential trail segment. Commissioner Hasek stated that building a trail will slow vehicle traffic is absolutely not true and it is not proven. There was continued ensuing discussion about trails. There were various comments made about the need for speed enforcement. Commissioner Hasek commented that when a police officer is parked along Yellowstone Trail to enforce the speed limit they are very visible. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 9 of 9 Administrator Heck stated the other day at 5:30 P.M. on his way to dinner he saw a patrol officer parked in a driveway monitoring traffic speeds and when he returned the officer had stopped a driver on Yellowstone Trail. He then stated in the three and one half years he has been employed by the City it is the first time he has ever observed a patrol officer running traffic in the City of Shorewood. The enforcement concern was reiterated. A couple of Commissioners commented that they perceived officers did not write tickets for speeding very often in the City. Commissioner Arnst stated she agreed with Council Liaison Hotvet that it was time to take the step. Director Nielsen noted that the issue of concern about being safe when going to get mail from a mailbox will not be solved by a trail because a person has to walk across the street. • SLUC No report was given. • Commissioner Garelick – Real Estate in the South Lake Area Commissioner Garelick stated he used to be on the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission and during his tenure he would give a report regularly on real estate in that City. He then stated in the City there is basically just houses. He went on to state the worst of the real estate slump is over. Foreclosures are the lowest they have been since 2007. He noted that Shorewood is not a good place to purchase a home if you are a first or second time home buyer. Garelick presented a tremendous amount of information on property values, selling prices and so forth for properties located in the City, the metropolitan area and the South Lake area. He noted there are 53 pieces of real estate for sale in the City at this time with drastically different property values. He extended the offer to share the printed information he has gathered with the Commissioners. He stated the inventory is dropping on foreclosures and short sales. That is good. He noted it is still a buyer’s market. He also noted the median price for properties in Shorewood are the fourth most expensive in the metropolitan area. He stated the City has to find a way to have younger people be able to have a way to be able to move into the City. 9. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 21, 2012, at 8:39 P.M. Chair Geng again thanked Commissioner Arnst for her contributions. Motion passed 7/0 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mmus ® cityhaI1 @d.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 February 2012 RE: Campbell Residence — Expansion of Nonconforming Structure FILE NO. Property (450 Lafayette Avenue) BACKGROUND Dan Krieter, Matthias K Builders, has submitted plans for a substantial renovation of the home at 450 Lafayette Avenue (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). The home is quite substandard with respect to zoning requirements, as well as building code compliance. Since the renovation involves an expansion of the building, it is subject to Plamiing Commission review and recommendation and approval by the City Council. Lafayette Avenue is essentially a private driveway that serves four lots on a small peninsula of land extending into Lake Minnetonka (see Exhibit B, attached). The subject property is zoned R- lA /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland and contains only 6369 square feet of area. As shown on the site plan for the property (Exhibit C), the existing home encroaches into the side yard setbacks required in the R -lA /S district. No doubt starting as a summer cottage, the existing home is plagued by a foundation system that does not meet building code requirements. The second floor also exhibits unsound structural support. The applicant proposes to remove the existing upper level, replacing it as shown in Exhibit E. Leaving the first floor walls intact, the foundation will be underpinned using screw piles and grade beams to achieve Building Code compliance. As shown on Exhibits C and D, the renovation includes an addition to the lower level on the north end of the building and additions to the upper level on both the north and south ends. Building elevations are shown on Exhibit E and architectural renderings of the building are shown on Exhibit F. At 38.11 percent, the property is well over the 25 percent hardcover limitation required in the Shoreland overlay district. The applicant intends to remove the existing gravel driveway and a ®1, # PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Campbell Residence — Expansion of Nonconforming Structure 29 February 2012 substantial amount of concrete sidewalk area. The result will actually be a reduction in hardcover to 34.41 percent, as shown on Exhibit G. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Shorewood amended its regulations last year to comply with State legislation regarding nonconformities. Sections 1201.03 Subd. l .d. and Subd. Li. of the Shorewood Zoning Code, shown on Exhibit H, provide the guidelines for addressing nonconformities. Following is how the applicant's request complies with the Code: Subd. I.d. This section simply provides that where nonconformities cannot achieve complete compliance, the plans for rebuilding are subject to Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval. While no public hearing is required, the applicant has been in touch with the two adjoining neighbors. He will provide written comments from them prior to Tuesday night's meeting. According to the project architect, both neighbors are in agreement with the plans and have granted approval for the contractor to use their properties as necessary to do the renovation. This section also requires a demonstration that the project conforms substantially better with current zoning requirements. The most significant compliance proposed in the applicant's plans is with respect to hardcover. A 3.7 percent reduction is considered quite substantial. It should be realized that one of the ways they intend to achieve the reduction is the removal of the existing gravel driveway. Technically, the Code requires two parking spaces, one of which is already provided by the existing garage. The applicant proposes to install a "geo- grid" in place of the current gravel driveway. Approval of the building permit should include engineered drawings for this geo -grid system, at least 9'x20'. Subd. Li. The proposed plans do not increase the nonconformity and the expansion areas comply with setback requirements. The architect spent considerable time with staff to understand the requirements in this regard. The result is a creative solution to fitting more house on the property. In spite of its unique angles, the house maintains a traditional cape cod character. 2. Even with the proposed additions, the house and existing garage do not exceed the 30 percent building to floor area ratio. 3. Over the past several years, staff has met with previous owners and prospective buyers for the subject property. All wanted to enlarge the existing structure. As noted in 1. above, the character of the proposed design should fit in with the existing neighborhood. Approval of the neighbors, while not required, is an indication that the home fits. N Memorandum Re: Campbell Residence — Expansion of Nonconforming Structure 29 February 2012 4. Although the upper level will be larger, by stepping it in, the impact on the two adjoining residences is considered to be minimized. 5. Since the existing structure is already too close to both side lot lines, there is no opportunity to make up any deficiency. RECOMMENDATION Staff is in agreement that the subject property is one of the most difficult we have seed in terms of significant renovation. In this regard, the applicant, the architect and the owner are to be commended for their efforts to comply with Shorewood's zoning requirements. Subject to a requirement that engineered plans for the geo -grid parking space be submitted with the building permit, approval of the plans is recommended. Cc: Brian Heck Joe Pazandak Dan Krieter Bob Shaffer -3- I L W-7- 7 1 0 C Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Campbell Residence Co SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" . f -0" I I SITE AREA - 6,369 SQ. FT. \ I a\ m /- HIGH WATER LINE SITE PLAN i GENERAL NOTES FLOOR t ROOF PLANS Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN THE FOUNDATION Architec1s 1 0,nndi -1, P.A. 11 se1e460 - if "V", Alin„rsorn 55401 '. u, f „r,rl«no„arch can, pl,,— 61 2 .340.5430 f- 612 . 3405431 Lei BENCH \`\ __-f__ -- Y- �.� 4 ;.. -- SGREE �' \\ `, 6 i ____________ ____�\ ` :ENTER ON WALL i —_ a i I SCREEN PORCH I 1 ITPH3464 II 1-3464 •�, 14'•11• 105' i \ I—e4&4.4 I' -b° J 1rTll W ��7 O QO a a .0 �N 5 a F CENTER OPEN Wxa" (FINISH) STRUCTURAL B "x5" ( FINI5H) STRUCTURAL ' \\\ j WALL ENTRY P05T5; 4 THUS . \ \ \\ P05T5; 4 THUS UP I – DNING AREA FAMILT ROGt i 9 ' car SEE S' -TURAL \ \• -%1 E..a NEER DRAUItYS % \ 4 36" DIRECT VENT GAS 4I A3 n FIRST FLOOR PLAN FIREPLACE UNIT ISLAND � T• � w � (NICJ NEW EXTERIOR STUD E R� WALL a FIREPLAGE O KITCHEN .ry'b ♦ 6 b .. NEW FOUNDATION WALL UTILITIES UTILITIES GLOSEi d FOOTING; 4 • 4S" 5EE Ib . -�•, 3. -b. e EXISTING FIREPLACE TO BE REMOVED M IL ITpH2644x2 m -`�` I 1 FUDROOM He gFFICE - I b' -0 4' -II' x C OVERHANG OF —{- 41. 33AATH I SECOND FLOOR \ ABOVE O U t PORTION EXISTING HOUSE 3 E i0 BE REMOVED 4 T l_ gar U FEN EXTERIOR 5TUD _ WALL ALIGN W WALL IAWN2523 IAWN2523x2 tlNS 056x2 ® SECOND FLOOR \ I °s NEW FOUNDATION I' -8�• d\'SI i i \ T5 6 \ \ — WALL d FOOTING; i \\ C�CE SEE (1)51m. CENTER ON 4 M BATH I i \ BENCH BENCH \`\ __-f__ -- Y- �.� O Z 1rTll W ��7 O QO a a .0 �N 5 a F CENTER OPEN Wxa" (FINISH) STRUCTURAL B "x5" ( FINI5H) STRUCTURAL ' \\\ j WALL ENTRY P05T5; 4 THUS . \ \ \\ P05T5; 4 THUS FOUNDATION DESIGN ' SEE S' -TURAL \ \• -%1 E..a NEER DRAUItYS % \ 4 4I A3 n FIRST FLOOR PLAN 6y SCALE: 1/4" z F -0" Matthias K. Builders 3521 Webster Av. S. SL Louis Park, MN 55416 t Qza,S J,w diz Flan, aFz_�E «'part pmp,ved trym ,nY�rn vd :tu„Iv .i, §,Iva xrsd n,�Ar,fn- t�usaraYS,eLac nta,u Revision No. pate W U z W O Z 1rTll W ��7 O QO a a .0 �N 5 a F U capvngf:t 201 2 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS Date 02/02/12 Project No. 06 -03 .� I A 1 Exhibit D rf'� SECOND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS AI SCALE: 114° = 1' -0" Ix CEDAR HORIZONTAL5 SPACED I"; RANDOM 51ZIN6 ARRANGED AS 5HO:NN _•■ .u■.■ ern • ' j � ■��i•: � ■■■■ moom GONTIWOJS RIDGE VENT 14'x18" NON - OPERABLE GABLE VENT 2.5 FIBER CEMENT TRIM BOARDS TD. PATE SECOND FL30R DECORATIVE K- BRACKETS: 10:12 PITCH 5IM TO SLOPED ROOF; 2.5 FIBER CEMENT TRIM FINISH TYPICAL: MA VIN INTEGRITY WOOD-ULTREX WINDOWS 4 PATIO DOORS TO B3R ■1 ul I■ of III I■ III I■ o� oil Sol 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ - ------------- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ So ■■11 ■� - - -gym ■ ■■ ■ ■1 1■■ � �� E ,:�et 2DI 3 A 11 A7 SCALE: 1 /4" : 1' -0" Exhibit E ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�� ■ ■■1 ■r nn in all n ■I ■ all ■■ �_�_ ■m �� ■■ ■■ I ■■ "'"'"' 1■■r ■� ■■ ■■ I ■■ ■■ Ine ■ ■■■■■■■■ isommommommil �■ ■■ ■■ 1 ■1 ■■ m ■ ■I Is ■ ■1 son x __ ecaw ■ ■ ■ ■� INN ■� ■■i_ /_._. ■ Iwo n ■- _ __ . ■■ ■ofd' 1■■■■■■■■■■■■■I mmmmmmmam=mmmmmmm __ ■u ■n ■ ■ TYPICAL: 2,6 FIBER DEMENT TRIM 0 FIR57 FLOOR WINDOWS d DOORS _0 NORTH ELEVATION 12 SCALE: 1/4" . T -0" NEN CONCRETE FOUNDATION a CLIPPED CORNER OF EXISTING I HOUSE; SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWIN65 SOUTU ELEVATION `12 $GALE: 1/4" : I' -0" ________ TD. EX75TIN'i RATE __._._._._ FIRST FLOOR 5°x6" (FINISH) P05T5, 4 THUS CONNECT EA. P05T TO FOOTING ./ 51MPSON STANDOFF BASE, OR APPROVED EGUAL NEW FOUNDATION 0 POSTS; SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWING{— �- -NEW FOUNDATION FOR NEW SCREEN PORCH SEE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWINGS CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT — TYPICAL: ASPHALT 5HINGLE5 a SLOPED ROOFS U.N.O. —14'x1b" NON - OPERABLE GABLE VENT IO 2x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM BOARDS TD. RATE SECOND FLOOR - - - - -- ' --- SHUTTERS ---- TYPICAL: MARVIN INTEGRITY HOOD- VITREX WINDOWS 4 PATIO DOORS 26 FIB GHENT TRIM 0 — E NTT'GFBJtG i EMENT FAYAA BOARD a RAT LON rJ TRIM B� 0 KN-L TD. E7 R -- - - - - -- SECOND FLOOR - -- - - TO. EX5TINS RATE FIRST FLOOR ICAL D EMENT SHINGLE ING; "I" r/- EXPOSURE ICAL: FIBER CEMENT CORNER ARDS FOUNDATION 0 SCREEN CH SEE 5TRIKTURAL INEER DRAWIN�{�------ BENCHES a EACH SIDE OF ENTRY NEW FOUNDATION 0 POSTS; SEE 5TRUCTURAL ENGINEER DRAWING{ Ix4 CEDAR 1.1 CEDAR Ixb CEDAR 2x2 FIBER CEMENT TRIM a INSIDE CORNER OF SHINGLES; TYPICAL DECORATIVE WOOD TRELLIS ---- TRELLI5 DETAIL SCALE : sy' = 1' -0" THE FOUNDATION Archtrecrs i C'on.cu11 - 1, R A. '12 77 /A . ..nee Y-th, Suite 460 1 (inncnpnlis, Al sorn 55401 :v:vw foundunonmel;. rom phone. 617.340.5430 6- 612340 5131 n ■1 !M 111 1 li �■ 5 p ■ }rtrtp}e ■ yy��1 yy { } � ®{ 33 � E�■ {{ 11 �� ,■ EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 114" . 1' -0" WALL GAP FOR GAS FIREPLACE VENT - NEW FOUNDATION FOR NEW FIREPLACE SUMP -OUT ABOVE; SEE STRUCNRAL ENGINEER DRAWINGS 2,4 FIBER CEMENT TRIM a SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS .0 look, ®ill milli 1' n■ ■I le ■1 Rol In ■k flail _ ■111 .u■■ I 6nn /e ■ ■■en ■1 ■■line ■nenl 4.4 CEDAR VERTICAL5 2.8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM BOARDS FIEBRGH- ENTFASGI BOARD a FLAT RCCF NJGV r✓ TRIM EOfJAO 4N_L `X,1�4'WFCC4Y; TRIM SIM TO W NDC^6 a FIRST FLou R �I �II r ii�riE■i�ikiii�■ii it iid�1 � ' \�"� � I w Big 1 ► ■■■ ■■■ ■■u ■r■ou■■ I rr ►1�■ ■■1 I Kim NMI DECORATIVE 1 ■. ■ ■n ■■! ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■r nl I' i ■el I ■■■■■ 0 ■■■■■■■ 1■ ■■nl r ■1 ' - iri■on ®■7 ®oi n.so.u.on.u.n.i .u■ nnn PITCH 51M. TO ELOPED IN CEMENT TRIM FIN15 I■n■■n■■n■■urn ■o.n ■u■■u■u u■r■ '� 1 ■ ■I [simimmimminso low . ■ ■■sr ■ ■ ■ ■..■1 .■..■ �'' moll B EIR CEMENT ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ NOUN I ■r ■ ■I moll TRIM � �. B ENCHES; Matthias K. Builders 3521 Webster A, S. St L P k MN 55416 ;hxlvn:. N:l}�r;.'ead aTbl ec ::naclh. 1� +, ora,r..mlr�r nr ox;- Revson No Date W W �F a U < w l � ~ W Q O a s 00 �N 5 � I�--1 Project No. 06 -03 U (�K) )JEST ELEVATION E ,:�et 2DI 3 A 11 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS `ALI6N— 2x6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM a FIRST r Date OZ /OZ /IZ FLOOR DOORS t WINDOWS �I 5_REEN'weDOIN, TRIM SM 1 Project No. 06 -03 TOWN 0 FIRST FLOOR (�K) )JEST ELEVATION A 11 A7 SCALE: 1 /4" : 1' -0" Exhibit E PROPOSED ELEVATIONS THE J ARCHITECTS 212 Third Ave. N, Suite 460 Minneapol MN 55401 www.foundationarch.com p. 612.340.5430 f. 612.340.5431 Matthias K. Builders 3521 Webster Av. S. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 1 c2itN, ihattie plw, spamcaf cn, or repw pepared by ire a. under my dire! xip =rvia 4 t�:zt I am 3 dLiv raasisred A. ShWWdc. W c C w z 0 copyright 2012 FIRST FLOOR PLAN—OPTION A Date 2.20.2012 Project No. 11-12.3 EXTERIOR fRENDERING5 A 1 11 Exhibit F ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS I � Ln o O z O z O lD N w i ..� a m m to r+ I-i Ln o o o X M In N U C� Q Q Ln z p z_ F Ln z Ln x LLJ U N w x w O O >- w � m z O U w J w � w I � w w Z w 0 c ,; F O O O= Q ? 7 Q cn S S S U U D> LL. i N C7 I � Ln o O z O z O lD N w i ..� a m m to r+ I-i Ln o o o X M In N U C� Q Q Ln z p z_ F Ln z Ln x LLJ U N w x w O O >- w � m z O U w J w � w I � w w Z w 0 c ,; F O O O= Q ? 7 Q cn S S S U U D> Exhibit G HARDCOVER TABULATIONS O lD U� lD N N i ..� m m to r+ I-i Ln W lD aq O X M N N U al m Ln N M N Q H O O LL. N C7 Z F— N Ul) X S w p w Z W J w CC Z D Q z w � O J w Z ' I I I J Y Q w � > > H O S Q R E Q 0 N S U U' C) 0 Exhibit G HARDCOVER TABULATIONS d. In instances where complete compliance cannot be achieved, nonconforming structures may be moved or rebuilt, when it can be demonstrated that the structure has less impact on adjacent properties, and conforms substantially better with current zoning requirements. Approval of such cases shall take into consideration existing and proposed landscaping, sight lines, and site drainage, and shall be subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. Subd. U. i. Lawful nonconforming, single - family residential units may be expanded, provided: (1) That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located; (2) That if the nonconformity exists because the lot area does not meet the minimum requirement for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall not increase the floor area of all structures to lot area ratio to greater than 30 %. (3) That the granting of the expansion shall not adversely affect the aesthetics or character of the adjacent property. (4) That any expansion shall take into consideration the protection of light and air to the adjacent property. (5) That in cases where a structure is too close to a lot line, the city may require that the discrepancy be made up by enlarging the opposite required yard space. (Example: where a building is eight feet from a side lot line in a district in which a ten foot setback is required, the city may require a 12 foot setback on the other side.) Exhibit H EXERPT — ZONING REQUIREMENTS o�ntbrmities CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CHUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -3927 ® (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 ® www.d.shorewood.mn.us - cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 March 2012 RE: Sustainability — Landscape Regulations FILE NO. GreenStep Cities Program The Planning Commission's work plan for 2012 includes three items listed as Best Practices in the Minnesota GreenSteps Cities Program: Adopt a policy of no net loss for specified natural landscapes Adopt landscaping /nuisance ordinances that promote, rather than create barriers for, native vegetation Low maintenance turf management/native landscaping To assist cities in enacting Best Practices, GreenSteps has provided various resources and links to what other cities have done. Exhibit A, attached, provides a model landscaping /maintenance ordinance. Frankly, the model is a bit disappointing. There are, however, some suggestions that we may wish to incorporate into our Code. As we explored what other cities have done relative to "no net loss of natural landscapes ", we found that most have adopted wetland ordinances and /or tree preservation ordinances. In this regard Shorewood has been ahead of the game for quite some time. Not only did we adopt rules in the early 70's setting wetlands aside, our current rules also provide buffers and setbacks from those wetlands. Shorewood has also been enforcing tree preservation and reforestation for many years. One thing we may wish to discuss is some clarification of what is and isn't allowed in wetland buffer areas. Exhibit B is a resident handout used by the City of Maplewood. There may be some useful material that we can incorporate into our resident information and ordinances. Our current nuisance regulations relative to vegetation have to do primarily with noxious weeds as regulated by the State (see Exhibit Q. There are also provisions in the current ®2, V.,® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Landscape Regulations I March 2012 Code that address diseased trees. With the pending emerald ash borer threat, these rules will be updated as part of an overall diseased tree program. One of the things Shorewood does not have, and never has had, is a grass length ordinance. This type of ordinance can often serve as a barrier to natural landscapes (e.g. prairie). For the most part, neighborhood standards have kept this from being a problem. On the occasions where we have had complaints about overgrown grass, the noxious weed regulations have served to resolve the problem (any good weed inspector who can't find a thistle or flowering spurge in someone's grass, just isn't looking hard enough!). Nevertheless, we have provided a copy of the Edina City Code as it relates to maintenance of vegetation (Exhibit D). The low maintenance turf management /native landscaping topic has to do with park management and may logically be the Park Commission's jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may wish to research this topic and route information to the Park Commission. For Tuesday night's meeting there are several policy questions that can be addressed. We have broken them down into residential and nonresidential categories: Residential 1. Does anything need to be done about unwanted vegetation (e.g., noxious weeds, grass length, etc.)? 2. Importance of maintaining choice (some people very much like turf grass). 3. Ways to educate public, encourage use of native /natural landscaping. Nonresidential 1. Professional design (already required). 2. Maintenance requirements (e.g. irrigation). 3. Importance of maintaining choice (some business owners may prefer a formal landscape as opposed to a natural landscape). 4. Ways to encourage, provide incentives, for native /natural landscaping. Finally, if he is willing, staff asks Commissioner Hasek to talk briefly about the difference between "native" and "natural" plants /landscaping. Cc: Brian Heck -2- /7 N � 61� O V ■ ^^ 1�L E O L U- _ O A 8 O e G aN O O m O m O Q N 0 .' p O u ' ' c o l c 0 O G S:r O — 7 A CtS O L U I C, RI G". L U 'O 5 O c� < Exhibit A U A z N bp " 14- } v 41 r � r I , U . C�.' ��' b 7b �' 'V O .a O ," w U J O U O ti G." c3 0 0 c v � � w y p ai a v't "?7 Wo y p y w U U o C v w v N o p 71 U p d C O o d O Y p" O u u ty v y O w b ° K o r N y bA bA a v c O ° v U U y � L 0 O cz n E Q bJ O ' O .O O O P, C v U V U �O O ''' Q bA N + w U S, c1 1 41 b.0 u G N a 13 0 Q d °� U, N R+ + U bA v m OU sv N v m bA v ° s, 0 bA O U b,O u v o m .C� B O r v 'y� a b y , p c U '4 'D O 14. m IL) U u hp , p b u r ca _c! 0 v r U u ° w wv cs ` c� p � � � +- C U y Q u v C�4 v y 4 �� v v O d X = v v bA o r bA Q q q bAw C v by p r O r bJO L1 O O cs c3 v �n as bA a n O v ✓ L Y G �• R U O v O U w 5 r, O N. O v, cc O y p c3 m .b ya zi U O y y, u b� v y cs m 'b v yv cs Lf v , N v w `� o O �� 5 v Q O '' r d �i C v � O Z� v Y C J a N u U U O w 0 M j p C b c3 - D v :o m ¢ ° bA b� y . wuno u q. A-, v c r° %j i y R Y" l� Ts Std {,d lj v Q w �� d Q It _ O N N . O O U E R bO to N O O O G v �8 5 N W X N U W U N S O �o i W bf sa O X SL , U u bA N O � . bf d v C b y G V O O u x cz C OQ N Ls C O a A v '� 71 u "Cj O u O 12� r N o o x N O N a a bf U N O u l M u tCCJn N U . .~i H cd U N U H U bf " "' + + N O .i W CL, N W . W p q q O O U � . ��' bf � �C U U • • � .S+ N N N N 'q N N N EL Q O O p p Q v v m r �i, N 'LS v ' '� O b bf O y M =- p p u M 7� = u o u r p w' u u of , ,� U U r bOO p 5 N N U b p m 'Z� p O O d d C b b4 O O bA . . N U U U U N O O O O O O O b L7 bA w O N O .0 0 O O bA . v w -d cl C 5 U N v a.+ v V v bA O V O I-� O �i C . o a O bA u U Q ti 1-+ N B v U w 0 U N "d O 0 O 'd C c� U O G d aJ C 0 u O 'b O w u U O a� Y v bq O U S". R CV M 4 vi v r 'cl v h 0 cu v .d 0 ct C v v 0 U .y b bA n C v v 0 O c C U v H n a� u di t—+ r-� o °' y g 0. 00 0 b.00 o ._ ct W o° N b q o o � U ✓ > v R" d O 'i w O b b A +' v M cv v v W v u O v t � O v o zs 1 � O N o C > to rL, 14 O u �4 v O v� bA U bL p u o O bA . 2 CZ 0 .d Q u b T r o 3 u o u 4 ,� C ( on o u cz ° u 'd ' O o c� C O O n v y . w in v� C v vi v d bn p-, O B v� v w u N O � v p Q C u u . q u cs O U b1; O C's S' + sa v> v 'd ° u U ° � ° bA 5 i1 C o a = v o w o o " *' u u v� b� v C b O '7j "d H bA y4 _s D ti v pip v O O r v w o v °j x C q C o m O C v ° a c� N T Q. R a G cs u O, O v v b r M v c 0 O O bA . v w -d cl C 5 U N v a.+ v V v bA O V O I-� O �i C . o a O bA u U Q ti 1-+ N B v U w 0 U N "d O 0 O 'd C c� U O G d aJ C 0 u O 'b O w u U O a� Y v bq O U S". R CV M 4 vi v r 'cl v h 0 cu v .d 0 ct C v v 0 U .y b bA n C v v 0 O c C U v H n a� u di t—+ r-� U O •d U rR u V N c3 N C N bA O V c5 S, N ti ccz U C a �a . o A c3 U w O cs 0 N 'U id U Q, O U 7d ~ i C3 U L.� .ti CS N c3 5 O b C H U 0 a� IR 7� p 4J N ' U G O C O 0 � w r�, ° �c cl P, � 0 °' A E N N w cs C — w U C C O U O p C O u U U Q C Q, r QJ a 8.0 u ,.� sa 'C3 •,.., , Qj 71 b O w0 o v C N t O 'b cz }-' by N C cz c .C! �C ° •'�, v; N cc G U N . bio ,t N N Xrl C.1 O y O `r�,y ' tJ N U 5 Ski ' U"i 4� C u w C U O ct C bA u O C p Q C .4 C s4 O w .� C �+ cs ¢ N U p C�4 .� N N V-, ti Ci 'n V U • a'7 c�i C L'. Q v CL4 C C p C c a y d w U C P, O y �rr r cCs N cd b r C °+ S" b ° u CD, w~ N 6j) u v `a N C .� N '� � bA U 0 N O .a Q C � , C >, ° u cil Q p C 7 � . ,q b .✓� O P, N C ti N � ° v 4 i VVNi a° a y O w 0 c 7 C7 C � O Q 0 U°� Q)° cz 5 O y q N U u -� C p ;4 O 0 w O O O C cl • 11 •'�� Li a U w a �-, U N ° N i C n U 3-+ N U a N '+ ' :� y ii N u v�U�''i!! ti �,° .ti.� 0 ° iy-I o S y 0 N . ° . a v u N w (d i w a�i r',' c f ', 71 C ' a m N In. y � y C7 b a.-� y w ° N ti vv V N ti ° �; (U (U b �4 s, ti 'CS c '� o n> o a v y 0� U a � s� cs m O y o �i Ry o LYi bA , � ✓ u z ,c, O F, O O C1, bn v 2 b C ti v, fa, C w O v r3 N cd v �i d O N u v O O Ls, ,� S� j U C3 cs 'b � N C f1a sa p C v u Q 0 v v O Q O �4 O ci p bjO r . w ; o N ¢ C � 4 m v cz C N O v v w v i q ^C7 Q a C U C v C O v N N � cs N M N J� bp ti U N C O Q w a O bQ p v O N Q p C O O ['! N -cl cz i v .0 O C v w bA 5. i� w v c3 - O Q d O Cl. O O O b N R U a�i C3 uC�4 v u U v 3 0 u Q) vU b.0 C Uv w U M -0 d O O p b 0 a C 71 �; C4 bO a u W o ' 0 o a O A c3 u .ti , bA C O w b O � O v p A p bA H p b U •.�-� . N. . ti a.+ C ,.., N � v b a' C U � El .b .� Tt bn a N H r b H Q) bjD o bn v 2 f� f" C` i� , C PIS O C" M Ca � Q W I t O y `b � O O w bA u U I w C O U C R u U 'CS c3 O � O c U U U N C 'n n. m -o U r� a 0 z-; O C i� 5, O �C a � U z C', v cd u a � N � � a O � bA v U C � C U U O U U o y O �4 '� M u O bA C + p O Q) b U O 7 � C14 U � � u � N � � U � O 6 u a N o a U u u � .u. u N u O O O C R, u C 'CS u � w � U . p u Q Qj O Ou O O u Un C VD O Q G J b u l w w U C b a r c b a U bA S� cz i ' bL O R O a H i 0 H Cl CJ 4t u N bA u O 72 U U C C U cz Aa U o R U N u d w u 1 CO O H o ct r b s U H Q) N O a cs } t o �1 w U v cz U CZ U u 0O Q) N b r O O p + N Z r u C cl p Q IL " s 4 O H > L Q bA u U I w C O U C R u U 'CS c3 O � O c U U U N C 'n n. m -o U r� a 0 z-; O C i� 5, O �C a � U z C', v cd u a � N � � a O � bA v U C � C U U O U U o y O �4 '� M u O bA C + p O Q) b U O 7 � C14 U � � u � N � � U � O 6 u a N o a U u u � .u. u N u O O O C R, u C 'CS u � w � U . C O v w O . O 0 a � O '"Z:l U a cs y ` 'b v CO ^ v o a O Iz Xr C4 Cl �vs w N p U O t7 O u n w w v y � o v o N G 41 b � C , g C v V o o v o v W .� y v W u cz J C-14 v v V w �? ° Si �'i U iva v C cd �-+ r U U U cd yA O v im' O s V) O N bA p C4 Ri C a p O p C�' ✓ � � :-1 WJ "d C.1 � � v N � U v bA is JN+ Ci A U (n ;-4 1 v bvA U N V CS 1J b y 0 S" ct H 3-V Q p (� cz ✓' � w j � + 1 �+ C) bij .n �i �+ � � � ° Q cs O 4-W .� p •� � ,r c3 cd c3 c3 c3 Li 4N � sa � a � u v +-� o C O v w O . O 0 a 11111111 lillil J ill III y • ' �' • i �' t •' Maplewood's wetland ordinance Wetlands serve beneficial environmental and economic functions. They maintain water quality by filtering pollutants and reducing flooding and erosion, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space for human interaction, and are an integral part of the city's environment. Activity surrounding wetlands may degrade, pollute, or accelerate the aging of wetlands. To protect this valuable resource, Maplewood updated its wetland ordinance on December 14, 2009. The purpose of the wetland ordinance is to protect wetlands and streams from degradation, pollution, and the acceleration of aging by regulating land use around wetlands and streams. The information below summarizes the parts of the wetland ordinance that are particularly applicable to homeowners. What is a wetland buffer? The buffer zone is the strip of vegetation located between developed land and a lake, stream, or wetland. A good buffer protects the water or wetland, adds beauty, and provides habitat for wildlife. The best buffers have a diverse mix of native or naturalized vegetation. This protects the wetland by stabilizing the shoreline, slowing and filtering runoff, and providing habitat needed for biological processes and plant and animal life. Wetland classification and buffer width requirements Each wetland in Maplewood has been classified based on its quality. Manage A wetlands are exceptional quality, Manage B are high - quality and Manage C wetlands provide moderate quality. Stormwater or utility ponds are ponds created to capture stormwater runoff. Maplewood's wetland ordinance adopts wetland classifications assigned by our watershed districts. A map showing the classification for each Maplewood wetland can be found on the city website at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us \wetlands. If you do not have web access, or if you have questions about the classifications, contact Maplewood's Community Development and Parks Department at 651 - 249 -2300. The ordinance assigns minimum buffer widths based on wetland classification: Wetland Buffer width for wetlands Classification Standard buffer width adiacent to lakes Manage A 100' 75' Manage B 75' 50' Manage C 50' 50' How do I measure the buffer? The buffer width is measured from the wetland edge. For existing residential properties, you can use the high water mark as the wetland edge. Some wetlands dry up during summer so the water's edge is not the wetland edge. In new development the wetland edge will usually need to be delineated by a professional wetland delineator. 5/3/10 Exhibit B What property Owners Living A djacent to We lands ShOLdd Knio w The ordinance tries to balance the protection of wetlands with the right of private land owners to use their land. The city's goal is to ensure that the quality of buffers and wetlands improves over time, rather than deteriorates. At a minimum, the city does not want to lose any buffers that are currently in native or naturalized vegetation. Thus, buffers with native or naturalized vegetation have restrictions and cannot be changed to lawn or to play areas. The ordinance allows for existing lawn and yards to be used to their full potential as lawns and yards. Residents that are currently mowing lawn to the water's edge may continue to do so; they are encouraged to restore a strip of non - mowed vegetation at the water's edge, but they are not required to do so. For details on what activities are permitted in a wetland or buffer, see the appropriate list below. Do I need approval or a permit to change the landscape in the buffer? Some management activities can inadvertently result in damage to a wetland (ex: erosion, herbicide drift). The ordinance permits some activities that are small scale and unlikely to lead to harm. But a Resident Wetland Buffer Management Worksheet and staff approval is required for many activities in buffers that have native or naturalized vegetation. The worksheet is intended to help residents understand the potential for damage and make sure the plans for their project have minimized that risk. WHAT CAN YOU DO iN THE BUFFER? FOR AREAS THAT WERE LAWN OR YARD OIL DECEMBER 14, 2009 (See next page for naturalized and native areas) IF BUFFER AREA IS CURRENTLY LAWN OR YARD The wetland ordinance restricts alteration of the wetland itself. It does not restrict alteration of buffer areas that were maintained as lawn or yard prior to the adoptions of the updated ordinance (December 14, 2009). Homeowners may continue to have these areas in lawn or yard and may make improvements and changes to these areas that are consistent with yard use. For example, a swing set or vegetable garden could be added to an area that is currently lawn, shrubs may be removed, a butterfly garden could be taken out and planted as lawn. The wetland ordinance does not require that you get permission for altering areas of your buffer that are in lawn or yard. However, other city ordinances and permits may apply for activities such as grading and building walls. Projects that have potential for erosion or will have large areas of bare soil for more than a few days should provide erosion control. If a homeowner would like to restore the buffer to native vegetation they may do so. No permission is needed to restore areas that are currently lawn or yard. You do not have to fill out the Wetland Buffer Management Worksheet. 5/3/10 WHAT CAN YOU DO IN THE BUFFER ?' FOR ESE THAT HA E NA TIVE OR NATURALIZED VEGE AT" The wetland ordinance restricts activities in purrer areas tnai are in natve U nat,uran/eu vegcLauun. Activities permitted in naturalized or native buffer Restricted activities ® submit a Residential Wetland Buffer Management Worksheet The following activities are permitted in naturalized or native buffers and do not require staff approval: 1. Maintaining pre- existing, nonconforming lawn area. 2. Removing trees or vegetation that are dead, dying, diseased, noxious, or hazardous. However, this must be done in a manner that does not compact or disturb soil through vehicle or equipment use. 3. Removing noxious weeds. If chemical treatment is used, it must be done in a way that does not harm other plants and does not introduce chemicals into the wetland or stream. 4. Removing non - native shrubs, such as buckthorn, if: • there is little chance of erosion; and • the site is flat or has slopes less than 6 percent grade; and • cut and treat method of removal is used on shrubs more than one -half ( % 2) inches in diameter (not pulling). 5. Selective* management of vegetation as follows: • Selective pruning of trees or shrubs in order to enhance their health. The following activities, or others not listed to the left, require a Resident Wetland Buffer Management Worksheet with staff approval. Many of these activities will be approved if done in conjunction with restoration or management that leads to enhancement of the buffer and /or wetland health and function. 1. Restoring buffer to native plants. 2. Removing trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, except as indicated in adjacent column. 3. Planting or seeding native vegetation, except selective as indicated in adjacent column. 4. Killing existing vegetation. 5. Installing stonework or retaining walls. 6. Using motorized vehicles and heavy equipment. 7. Grading or filling. 8. Installing a trail. 9. Installing boardwalk or dock. 10. Mowing. • Selective removal of tree saplings (less than 2 inches in diameter) in order to enhance wildlife value of the buffer. • Selective removal of non - native trees. • Selective removal of non - native weeds. 6. Installing temporary fencing without footings. 7. Projects within the buffer that are the subject of a wetland buffer management worksheet approved by the administrator. Native vegetation includes plant species that are indigenous to Minnesota and would have existed here prior to European settlement. Naturalized vegetation includes plant species that exist on a site without having been planted. They may be native or non - native. Noxious weeds means plants listed as prohibited noxious weeds in the Minnesota Noxious Weed Law (ex: Canada thistle, sow thistle). *Selective means management that affects only a few plants or a small area of the buffer. 5/3/10 3 How do I know if a plant is native? A list of Minnesota native plants is maintained by the University of Minnesota Herbarium and can be accessed at: www.bellmuseum.org /plants /mn_flora.html (click on state checklist). The list includes both native and non - native plants. For property owners intending to plant native plants, it is easier to use native plant lists from Minnesota nurseries that specialize in native plants (for example: Prairie Restorations, Inc., Landscape Alternatives, or Prairie Moon Nursery.) 5/3/10 501.04 Nuisances 501.04 Subd. 6. Privy vaults, garbage (except in auth containers), garbage cans which are not fly- tight, y ard cleanings or other foul or unhealthy ma terial. Composting of h owever, leaves, grass clippings, and easily biodegradable, nonpoisonous garbage may be permitted, rovid in § `I !2 Subd. 3 of this o#r- Subd. 7. The pollution of any public well or cistern, stream, lake, canal or body of water by sewage, creamery or industrial wastes or other substances. Subd. 8. All noxious weeds as referenced in M.S. §§ 15.75 - 18.88 and promulgated in Minnesota Rules, as may be amended from time to tune, located on public or private property. The r� F t.XrLIVne term weeds does not include shrubs, trees, cultivated plaits or crops Tide terms rrua.�tir and RA VEGETATION includes, but is not limited to, the following: a. Noxious weeds and rank vegetation shall include but not be limited to: alum (allium), Buckthorn, Bur Cucumber, Canada Thistle, Corncockle, Cressleaf Groundsel, Curly Dock, Dodder, Field Bindweed, French Weed, Hairy Whitetop, Hedge Bindweed, Hoary Cress, Horsenettle, Johnsongrass, Leafy Spurge, Mile -A- Minute Weed, Musk Thistle, Oxeye Daisy, Perennial Sowthistle, Poison Hemlock, Purple Loosestrife, Quackgrass, Russian Knapweed, Russian Thistle, Serrated Tussock, Shatter Cane, Sorghum, Wild Carrot, Wild Garlic, Wild Mustard, Wild Onion, Wild Parsnip; b. Grapevines when growing in groups of 100 or more and not pruned, sprayed, cultivated, or otherwise maintained for two consecutive years; c. Bushes of the species of tall, common, or European barberry, further known as Berberis vulgaris or its horticultural varieties; d. Any weeds or plants, other than trees, bushes, flowers, or other ornamental plants, growing to a height exceeding 12 inches. e. Rank vegetation includes the uncontrolled, uncultivated growth of annuals and perennial plants. f. The term WEEDS does not include shrubs, trees, cultivated plants or crops. Subd. 9. All public exposure of persons having a contagious disease. Subd. 10. The emission of dense smoke, gas and soot, dust or cinders, and other noxious and offensive fumes, in the quantities as to render the occupancy of property uncomfortable to a person of ordinary sensibilities. Subd. 11. Feces left by any domestic pet on public property or the property of another. The owner or person having the custody or control of the animal shall be responsible for immediately cleaning up any feces of the animal and disposing of the feces in a sanitary manner. 501 -3 Exhibit C n. a, Ci C Page 1 of 4 City ul f n r,uiTla - i,ode Section 1050 - Maintenance of Vegetation 1050.01 Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to prohibit the uncontrolled growth of vegetation, while permitting the planting and maintenance of landscaping or garden treatments which add diversity and a richness to the quality of life. There are reasonable expectations regarding the proper maintenance of vegetation on any lot or parcel of land. It is in the public's interests to provide standards regarding the maintenance of vegetation because vegetation which is not maintained may threaten public health, safety and order, and may decrease adjacent property values. It is also in the public's interests to encourage diverse landscaping and garden treatments, particularly those which restore native vegetation which requires less moisture and place a lower demand on the public's water resources. The City enacts this Section to balance these competing interests. 1050.02 Definitions. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following terms shall have the stated meanings. Native Grasses and Forbs. Grasses, including prairie grasses and flowering broad- leaf plants which are indigenous to the State. Natural Area. Any wetland or floodplain designated by Section 850 of this Code, or any area of mature woodland, prairie and meadow vegetation native to the State. Ornamental Grasses and Groundcovers. Grasses and groundcovers not indigenous to the State. Ornamental grasses and groundcovers do not include turf grasses. Planned Landscape Area. An area where ornamental grasses and groundcovers or native grasses and forbs are planted pursuant to a plan. Restoration Area. An area where native grasses and (orbs are being or have been intentionally re- established. Turf Grasses. Grasses commonly used in lawn areas, including any blue grass, fescue or rye grass blends or any other similar grasses. Weed. (i) Any plant which is identified by the State Commissioner of Agriculture as a noxious weed or secondary noxious weed pursuant to M.S. 18.171, Subd. 5, or (ii) any volunteer plant, except trees and other woody vegetation, which is not customarily or intentionally planted. 1050.03 Where Planted. Subd. 1 Ornamental Grasses and Groundcovers. Ornamental grasses and Exhibit D http: / /www.ei. edina. mn. us/ citycode /L5- 01_CityCodeSect1050.htm : fl: f r Page 2 of 4 dy o� c Edina - City Code groundcovers shall be planted only in a planned landscape area. Subd. 2 Native Grasses and Forbs. Native grasses and forbs shall be planted only in a planned landscape area or a restoration area. 1050.04 Location of Restoration Areas and Planned Landscape Areas. Subd. 1 Setback. A restoration area or a planned landscape area must provide the following minimum setbacks: Front Street or Side Street (as measured from 20 feet the traveled portion of the street) Side Yard or Rear Yard 5 feet Provided, however, that a required side yard or rear yard setback may be reduced to 0 feet if: A. A fully opaque fence at least five feet in height is installed on the lot line adjoining the restoration area or planned landscape area, or B. The restoration area or planned landscape area abuts (i) a restoration area on any adjoining lot, (ii) a public park or open space, (iii) a vacant lot, (iv) a wetland, pond, lake or stream, (v) or natural area, or C. The restoration area or planned landscape area is located on slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). Subd. 2 Composition of Setback Area. The setback area required by Subd. 1 of this Subsection shall be composed of pavement, rock, gravel, wood chips, regularly mowed turf grasses, trees or shrubs. 1050.05 Maintenance Standards. Every owner of property shall maintain the vegetation growing thereon according to the following minimum standards: Subd. 1 Turf Grasses. Turf grasses shall be regularly cut such that no individual plant shall exceed, at any time, ten inches in height or length as measured from its base at the ground to the tip of each stalk, stem or blade. Provided, however, that turf grasses (i) located on slopes equal to or steeper than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) or (ii) within 20 feet of a wetland, http:// www. ci. edina. mn. us/ citycode /L5- 0I_CityCodeSect1050.htm 3/2/2012 City of Edina - City Code pond, lake or stream, need not be maintained in accordance with this Subd. 1. Subd. 2 Weeds. Weeds shall be regularly cut or controlled such that no individual plant shall exceed at any time ten inches in height or length as measured from its base at the ground to the tip of each stalk, stem, blade or leaf. Noxious weeds as defined by the State Commissioner of Agriculture shall be eradicated. Subd. 3 Planned Landscape Areas and Restoration Areas. Planned landscape areas and restoration areas shall be cut at least once between May 1 and August 1 of each year to a height no greater than ten inches. Provided, however, that planned landscape areas and restoration areas (i) located on slopes equal to or steeper than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1) or (ii) within 20 feet of a wetland, lake, pond or stream, need not be cut as required by this Subdivision. No person shall permit ornamental grasses and groundcovers growing on the person's property to invade adjoining properties. 1050.06 Non - Conforming Planned Landscape Areas and Restoration Areas. Any planned landscape area or restoration area which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of this Section may continue to exist and need not comply with the requirements of Subsection 1050.04, but shall comply with Subsection 1050.05. Any expansion or addition to a non - conforming planned landscaped area or restoration area shall comply with all provisions of this Section. 1050.07 Exemption. Parks and natural areas owned by the City and rights -of -way owned by the County and State shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section. 1050.08 Abatement. Subd. 1 Nuisance. Any vegetation which does not meet the requirements of this Section is declared to be a nuisance. Subd. 2 Conditions Allowing Inspector to Enter Property. Entry by the weed inspector or assistant weed inspector for the purpose of cutting, removing, destroying or eradicating vegetation shall be done only after written notice is served upon the owner, and the occupant if other than the owner, of the property to be entered, and failure of the owner or occupant to cut down, remove, destroy or eradicate vegetation declared to be a nuisance, within the time, and in such manner, as the weed inspector or assistant weed inspector shall designate in the notice. The notice shall be given in the manner prescribed by M.S. 18.271, Subd. 2, and shall allow a minimum of seven days for the property owner or occupant to comply with requirements of the notice. Subd. 3 Owner's Responsibility for Costs Incurred. The costs and expenses incurred by the City in connection with entering a property pursuant to Subd. 4 of this Subsection and cutting, removing, destroying and eradicating vegetation declared to be a nuisance, shall be paid by the owner or occupant of the property entered pursuant to a notice containing the information Page 3 of 4 http: / /www.ci. edina. mn. us/ citycode /L5- 0I_CityCodeSect1050.htm 3/2/2012 City of Edina - City Code and served as prescribed by M.S. 18.271, Subd. 4. If the City is not paid the amount stated in the notice within 30 days or before the following October 1, whichever is later, such amount shall become a lien in favor of the City and a penalty of eight percent shall be added to the amount due as of that date and the total cost, expenses and penalties shall be certified to the auditor of Hennepin County for entry as a tax upon such property for collection as other real estate taxes are collected, all pursuant to the provisions of M.S. 18.271, Subd. 4. History: Ord 1031 codified 1970; amended by Ord 1031 -AI 1 -3 -80, 1031 -A2 6- 29-83, 1031 -A3 3- 28 -90; amended by Ord 1993 -4 4 -5 -93 Reference: M.S. 18.171, 18.271 Cross Reference: Section 850 Page 4 of 4 http: / /www.ci. edina. mn. us/ citycode /L5- 01_CityCodeSect1050.htm 3/2/2012