Loading...
07-02-19 Planning Commission MeetingCITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY JULY 2, 2019 CALL TO ORDER 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 4, 2019 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. AClFNT)A ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE GAULT (Jun) RIEDEL (tbd) MADDY (tbd) GORHAM (tbd) EGGENBERGER — Absent on 7 -2 -19 A) ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SECTION 1201.03, SUBD. 2.D. TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT OF A C.U.P. FOR SOME ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 4. OTHER BUSINESS 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. REPORTS Council Meeting Report Draft next meeting agenda 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2019 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Gorham, Riedel and Gault (arrived at 7:12 p.m.); Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Labadie Absent: Commissioner Eggenberger 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gorham moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for June 4, 2019, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21, 2019 Gorham moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 21, 2019, as presented. Motion passed 2/0/1 (Riedel abstained). 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission's role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission's responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non - binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. A. CUP FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1,200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Mike Nicklaus Location: 27850 Woodside Road Planning Director Darling explained that the applicants propose to remove the existing home and construct a new home with two attached garages. She noted that this plan would require a CUP to allow 1,900 square feet of combined area of both accessory buildings because only 1,200 square feet is allowed without a CUP. She stated that the property is tree covered and will be subject to tree preservation requirements. She stated that the square footage would be split between the two garage spaces on either side of the home. She stated that the south facing garage will be oriented towards the street and the north facing garage will be visible from the cul -de -sac. She noted that the applicant will also have to submit drainage calculations along with their building permit application. She stated that staff is recommending approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2019 Page 2 of 10 Commissioner Riedel stated that in the conditions it mentioned that the front setback requirements were not met, but that revised plans were expected that would meet those setback requirements. Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant will be submitting revised plans and noted that she believes that the setback issue will be able to be accommodated because they are only eight- tenths of a foot off of what they need to be. Commissioner Riedel stated that there was also a back up generator and a free - standing light fixture mentioned. Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant needs to provide more information on those items to the City. Commissioner Riedel asked about staff's recommendation that the driveway be no greater than 25 feet in width. Planning Director Darling stated that the upper driveway is wider than the current ordinance will allow, so this is the time to address that discrepancy and bring it into compliance. Commissioner Gault arrived at the meeting. Chair Maddy asked if the City had limitations on how many driveways a parcel can have. Planning Director Darling explained that properties are limited to one driveway for each 120 feet of frontage. She noted that this property has about 500 feet of frontage, so they qualify for a second driveway. Chair Maddy asked Planning Director Darling to point out the front and rear lot lines. Planning Director Darling explained the location of the property lines. Commissioner Gorham stated that one of the plans shows an Option B and asked about the elevations in relation to the floor plans. He asked if the corridor was enclosed. Planning Director Darling stated that the corridor connects the exercise area on the lower level with the bedroom that is above the garage. Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to see the side elevation. Planning Director Darling noted the information in the packet that shows the elevation information. Mike Sharratt, 5590 Woodside Lane, stated that he is the architect for this project. He stated that the new home is proposed to be almost on the identical footprint of the existing home, but noted it is peculiar because there are three sides of the home that have a front yard setback of 50 feet. He noted that this family needs more than a two -car garage and explained the reasoning behind keeping the scale of a garage small that is facing Woodside Road with the larger garage space at the bottom near the cul -de -sac. He stated that the doesn't think most people will even be aware that there are four garage stall spaces on this property. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2019 Page 3 of 10 Commissioner Gault asked about the freestanding light fixtures and their impact on the neighboring properties. Mr. Sharratt stated that he did not have the lighting plan but, if he has anything to do with the design, people will not be able to see the filament of the bulb, just the effect of the light. Mike Nicklaus, 27850 Woodside Road, stated that he agrees with Mr. Sharratt that the light fixture will be shielded and noted that the lot is very wooded and will just give a bit of accent lighting on the driveway. He stated that the intent for the generator is not a whole house generator, but he would like to have the ability to have limited support during a power outage, such as power for the well. Riedel moved, Gault seconded, approving the CUP to Exceed 1,200 Square Feet of Area for Accessory Buildings for property located at 27850 Woodside Road, subject to conditions as listed in the staff report, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Maddy noted that he had forgotten to open this item for public comment and opened the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M. There being no public comment, Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing. Planning Director Darling asked that the motion be repeated, so it was officially documented after the Public Hearing. Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the CUP to Exceed 1,200 Square Feet of Area for Accessory Buildings for property located at 27850 Woodside Road, subject to conditions as listed in the staff report, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. B. CUP FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE FENCE (BATTING CAGE) Applicant: Steve Bodine, John Kraemer and Sons Location: 26310 Birch Bluff Road Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant proposes to install a batting cage that is up to 19 feet high in some areas depending on where it falls on an existing retaining wall. She explained that the proposed posts would be 15 feet tall and the netting would be about 14 feet tall and would be installed above the existing retaining wall. She explained that staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. She noted that staff has received two letters regarding this application, one in opposition and one in favor. Commissioner Riedel stated that it appears that the CUP that allows special purpose fencing is more open ended than the CUP for accessory spaces. Planning Director Darling stated that she agrees that this type of CUP is more subjective. Steve Bodine, John Kraemer and Sons, stated that they agree with the request by staff to request for a zoning permit. Chair Maddy asked when the scheduled completion date will be for this project. Mr. Bodine stated that the completion date is getting close because the final things are the turf play area and the batting cage. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2019 Page 4 of 10 Chair Maddy asked whether the pine trees would continue around the property. Mr. Bodine stated that they will be continued to the edge of the driveway of the lot as soon as the turf play area is installed. Commissioner Gault asked about the height of the batting cage and why the netting couldn't just be hung at 10 feet. Mr. Bodine stated that if you want to play at a higher level, you need to see the trajectory of the ball, which requires a greater height for the netting placement. He explained that this size batting cage is used at both the high school and college level. He noted that their planned netting is a bit different than the example shown by Planning Director Darling and will not be as thick and knotted. Commissioner Riedel asked how visible the poles will be to the neighborhood Mr. Bodine stated that when the tree placement is completed you will only be able to see the posts from the driveway. He stated that it will be pretty hard to see and will be similar to a flag pole. Commissioner Gault asked it the intent was to light the batting cage area or have it only for daytime use. Mr. Bodine stated that he did not have the lighting plan for the property so he was unsure. Commissioner Gorham expressed concerns about the sound of the crack of a bat if more than just the homeowner uses the batting cage, such as a team batting practice. Mr. Bodine stated that he expected it to be the homeowner's son and perhaps a few of his friends that would be pitching to each other. He stated that he expects it to be just another activity available on the property and not a workout facility for the team. Chair Maddy asked if the City had seen many complaints of kid's recreational activities making too much noise. Planning Director Darling stated that the complaints that she has received are regarding lights being too bright at night, such as portable lights, on hockey rinks and for noise related to sport courts when people are playing too late at night. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:38 P.M. Tom Lesser, 26245 Birch Bluff Road, asked for clarification about the lighting plan for this area at night. He stated that batting cages can be very loud and asked if there would be any approved hours of use outlined for the batting cages. Chair Maddy asked if this use would be subject to the same noise restrictions as things like riding a lawnmower. Planning Director Darling stated that there is nothing specific relating to recreational facilities on private property and noted that she did not think the situation has come up in the past. She stated that a noisy gathering could result in a noise complaint to the police. She stated that the City could also limit the amount of light that is allowed to be used at the batting cages as a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2019 Page 5 of 10 condition. She stated that with a CUP there could be "hours of operation" included, but noted that including that for a residential use is a bit unusual. Commissioner Gault confirmed with the applicant that the netting is soft and will not produce any noise. There being no additional public comment, Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m. Mr. Bodine stated that it will be hard to use a batting cage with hard balls and bat at nighttime, even with lighting, so he does not think it will be an issue at night. Chair Maddy stated that he is uncomfortable putting "hours of operation" on private property and noted that it feels like an over reach by the City. Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed that this will be best handled through existing lighting and noise ordinances. Planning Director Darling stated that the City could restrict the applicant from lighting the batting cage itself for nighttime use. Commissioner Gault confirmed with Planning Commissioner Darling that the only reason the applicants were applying for a CUP was because of the height of the poles and not having a batting cage on the property. Commissioner Riedel stated that the zoning allows for special purpose fencing and this is not an outrageous request. Mr. Bodine stated that he understands the restriction on lighting, but expressed concern about the need for lighting at dusk during different times of the year. He stated that completely restricting the lighting seems excessive. He noted that he thinks there will be the opportunity to provide subtle light rather than large stadium type lighting that will allow use of the cage, but will not disturb the neighbors. Commissioner Gault noted that in order to be effective, a batting cage needs bright, directional lighting, rather than down lighting. He suggested that the Commission limit the lighting to 10 feet up the poles rather than at the 19 feet point of the poles surrounding the batting cage. Mr. Bodine stated that he would support that because it would give lighting options, but would not be obtrusive to the neighbors. Commissioner Riedel stated that the intent, if this type of lighting is allowed, is that the batting cage not be used after dusk because that is when it will be most disruptive to the neighbors in terms of both noise and lighting. Commissioner Gorham stated that he does not want to have any gray areas and does not want to see any lighting on the batting cage. Mr. Bodine noted that there will be landscape type lighting in the area. Commissioner Riedel stated that would take care of "safety" lighting in the area CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2019 Page 6 of 10 Chair Maddy expressed concern that the Commission did not have the exact lighting plan in front of them in order to evaluate the things that are being discussed. A member of the audience spoke about the existing tree cover on this lot noting that foliage will be gone by fall. Mr. Bodine asked what the City usually does with things like sport courts with regard to noise and lighting. Planning Director Darling noted that noise disturbances are police calls. Commissioner Gault stated that he is becoming concerned because every time the Commission comes up with lighting restrictions, Mr. Bodine comes up with an objection. He stated that he is starting to get the impression that Mr. Bodine is aware of the lighting plan for this property. Mr. Bodine stated that he has worked on this project long enough to know that sometimes ideas come up after things are built and wants to make sure that this is all covered. He stated that he is trying to get the same rights for his homeowner as those who have sport courts. Commissioner Gault stated that sport courts are a bit different because that is typically something like basketball which is a different noise than would come from a batting cage. Chair Maddy noted that sport courts also do not require a CUP and in this instance, the applicant is asking for a fence height two times what is allowed in the City. Gault moved, Riedel seconded, recommending the Council approve the CUP for Special Purpose Fence (Batting Cage) for the property located at 26310 Birch Bluff Road, subject to conditions as listed in the staff report and that no lighting will be installed with the intent of lighting the batting cage. Motion passed 4/0. C. MINOR SUBDIVISION; VARIANCE FOR FRONT SETBACK; CUP FOR FILL OVER 100 CUBIC YARDS (continued to July 2, 2019) Applicant: Joe Allen, Highland and Associates, Inc. Location: 5965 Grant Street Planning Director Darling noted that the applicants propose to demolish the existing home and subdivide to construct two new homes, which would include bringing over 100 cubic yards of fill to the site. She stated that the applicant needs additional time to submit revised plans, so she is suggested that public testimony be taken tonight and this item be continued to the July 2, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing for comment at 8:03 p.m., being there was no public testimony, Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing. Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, to continue the request for a Minor Subdivision, Variance for Front Setback, and CUP for fill over 100 Cubic Yards for the property located at 5965 Grant Street, to the July 2, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 4/0. 4. OTHER BUSINESS A. PREAPPLICATION — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT SKETCH REVIEW Applicant: Bill Stoddard, Stoddard Companies CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2019 Page 7 of 10 Location: 25400 State Highway 7 (vacant parcel between Eureka Rd and Seamans Dr Planning Director Darling noted that the subject property is located between Eureka Road and Seamans Drive, north of State Highway Seven. She stated that the applicant is asking for informal comment on a sketch plan for 20 small, single - family lots clustered along a new cul -de- sac. She noted that if the applicant comes forward with an application, it would need a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be compatible with the proposed density, rezoning to amend the site to a PUD, a PUD concept, development and final stage review, as well as a preliminary and final subdivision. She showed examples of the home styles that are proposed and reviewed setbacks, traffic and parking. She stated that the applicant is looking for the Commission's opinion on the proposed plans. Commissioner Gorham asked if there was a watermain extension requirement with this development. Planning Director Darling noted that with any residential development that has more than 4 homes, there is a watermain extension requirement. Commissioner Gorham asked if there had been any notification put out regarding this proposed plan. Planning Director Darling stated that there had not been any notification because this is an informal sketch plan review where the developer is looking for informal comments. Commissioner Riedel asked if there would be enough pervious surface on the site with the proposed plan for stormwater management. Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission could provide an exception to the amount of impervious surface, but not to the amount of stormwater retention and those issues. Commissioner Riedel asked if Planning Director Darling felt there would be enough area on site to handle infiltration and absorption of the stormwater from the site. Planning Director Darling stated that the plans show a good -sized pond and the developer would have to provide the documentation that it could handle the appropriate amount of stormwater and drainage. Commissioner Gault asked about the location of the culvert that flows across State Highway Seven. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes it is in the south east corner of the site. She stated that she is not sure if the pond will be kept in the same area as is proposed, once the engineers get involved. Commissioner Gault asked why this would be a cul -de -sac and not a straight through street between Eureka Road and Seamans Drive. Planning Director Darling stated that she takes responsibility for that design and explained the traffic situation in the area and why she recommended a cul -de -sac. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2019 Page 8 of 10 Chair Maddy confirmed that he had understood Planning Director Darling correctly that the neighbors were not notified of this proposed sketch plan. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes a resident saw it and got word out via NextDoor, but the City had not officially notified the neighborhood. Bill Stoddard, Stoddard Companies, stated that it is important to him to do something that fits in with the neighborhood and yet meets today's needs. He stated that people really like buying, new, smaller homes that include a small HOA so the outside yard area is taken care of. He noted that because of the water table in the area, these homes will not have basements, so they would like to have the option for one -story or two -story design. He stated that he would like to have a neighborhood meeting to explain the concept to the neighbors fairly early in the process. He stated that one of the next steps will be to do soil borings. Mike Steadman, 24505 Niblick Alcove, stated that he is a new construction specialist for Burnett and he feels there is a tremendous need for new, affordable housing with a zero lot line development. He stated that he thinks this development could be very unique and desirable. Commissioner Riedel stated that the price point suggested for these units does not qualify as affordable housing. Mr. Steadman stated that it is affordable compared to Minnetonka Country Club. Commissioner Gault asked if the intent was to build these homes to order or to build them to spec and then sell them. Mr. Stoddard stated that he has a handful of builders that are very interested in this project. He stated that they will start at one end and build in phases and build as the purchase agreements are in place. Chair Maddy explained that there is a traffic bottle neck in this area along Eureka Road especially during sporting events. He stated that under the current zoning, this property is entitled to seven lots without requiring a CUP or rezoning the property. He stated that the thirteen extra homes would bring about 140 extra automobile trips to this area which is a cause for great concern by residents in the area. He shared other concerns that were shared by the residents from the last proposal. Commissioner Riedel noted that he had taken a drive to this property today after the rainstorm and the amount of standing water was impressive. He stated that the water table, the wetland designation and the stormwater management for this site may be a significant challenge. Chair Maddy stated that higher density for this particular parcel will be a challenge and was the biggest concern shared by the area residents, for good reason. Commissioner Riedel stated that the outcome of the last proposal for this parcel was that they recommended that a traffic study be done. He explained that because of the feedback from both the City and the neighborhood, the developer saw that the project was unlikely to move forward, and was unwilling to complete the traffic study. He stated that concerns about additional traffic in this area are very real. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2019 Page 9 of 10 Commissioner Gorham stated that people were very upset about the last proposal and were very vocal about their concerns for traffic in the entire area, including unsafe speeds and pedestrian dangers. Commissioner Riedel stated that the plan proposed is quite good because all the properties are on the north side and it preserves quite a bit of the tree cover between State Highway Seven and the property. He explained that his concerns are with the density and the number of cars this proposed development would add. Mr. Stoddard asked if the property to the west was a multi - family development. Planning Director Darling stated that it is a quad home development called Shorewood Pond which was approved as a PUD in 1999. She noted that she has suggested the Commission give feedback on the fourteen items listed in the staff report. Chair Maddy suggested that the Commission go through the list item by item and give their feedback. The consensus of the Commission is that: 1) the density shown does not appear to be acceptable; 2) the design height of the dwellings appears to be acceptable if they are mixed and not a row of two story homes with a 14 foot setback 3) the reduced setback seems acceptable; 4) traffic analysis should be required with school in session; 5) setback from Eureka Road and Seamans Drive should be 35 feet; 6) right -of -way dedication should be consistent with City code, but discuss the possibility of narrowing the streets and only allowing parking on one side of the street; 7) consider increasing the radius of the cul -de -sac; 8) watermain should be extended to the north and south to allow for further extension in the future; 9) work with City and MCWD for stormwater treatment and provide soil borings; 10) impervious surfaces limited to 33 percent and 25 percent within the shoreland district; 11) add language to HOA documents that restricts the use of the garages as outlined being cautious and vigilant about enforcement and making sure the language is actually included by the HOA before building permits are issued; 12) provide a tree inventory and protect the trees; 13) consider increasing the number of trees above what is required to add additional buffer; 14) amend the shoreland district to accommodate the channel that lies below the OHWL on the north side of Minnewashta Lake. Commissioner Riedel stated that items 2 -14 are all great and things that can be addressed, but item 1 is not because the density proposed is too much. Riedel moved, Gorham seconded to recommend to the Council that items 2 through 14 of the proposed conditions are generally acceptable as outlined above, but the density appears to be unacceptable for this development based on traffic concerns. Motion passed 4/0. B. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — SECTION 1201.03, SUBD 2D Planning Director Darling stated that a draft ordinance amendment was included in the packet to remove the requirement for a CUP for accessory buildings over 1,200 square feet, but continue to require the same conditions. She explained that staff is also proposing some housekeeping changes to the language. She stated that in order to amend the ordinance, a Public Hearing will be necessary. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2019 Page 10 of 10 Commissioner Riedel stated that he is in favor of this amendment, but, noted that in general, he is in favor of Conditional Use Permits. Chair Maddy stated that he fully supports cleaning up the code and agrees with the proposed amendments. Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, to recommend approval to the Council for the zoning text amendments regarding oversized accessory buildings and cleaning up the language as proposed. Commissioner Gault asked what ordinance would be applied if someone wanted to put up a structure that is not a building, such as a windmill. Planning Director Darling stated that the height limitation would apply and it is in a different part of the code. She stated that when she brings the final form of this amendment back for the Public Hearing, she will include that section of the code as well. Commissioner Riedel asked what part of the code a gazebo or a patio would fall Planning Director Darling stated that a gazebo would be considered a building and a patio would be considered a structure. Chair Maddy asked where a screened in porch would fall in the code. Planning Director Darling explained that usually screened in porches are attached to the home so they would not be subject to the accessory building limitation, but if they were detached, they would. Motion passed 4/0. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Labadie reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council's May 22, 2019, meeting and work session (as detailed in the minutes for those meetings). • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Director Darling stated there is a variance request to redevelop a small lot. She noted that at the June 10, 2019 Council meeting the Comprehensive Plan will be taken back to the Council for authorization to submit it to Met Council. 7. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Gault seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2019, at 9:09 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: July 2, 2019 RE: Zoning Text Amendment: Oversized Accessory Buildings (Section 1201.03 Subd. 2 d of the zoning regulations) Notice of the public hearing for this zoning ordinance amendment was published in both of the official city newspapers at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Attached is a draft ordinance that removes the requirements for conditional use permits for accessory structures that are over 1,200/1,000 square feet (depending on the zoning district). The attached ordinance does not remove the standards that have historically been applied to applications for the oversized structures. The City Attorney has reviewed the amendments. This ordinance draft is very similar to the last version, with one notable exception in subsection (c). The current language reads as follows: (c) In evaluating the conditional use permit, the city shall take into consideration the location of existing and proposed structures, site drainage and landscaping. The above language has more discretion than is appropriate for staff review; issues reviewed by staff should be measurable. Staff propose the following replacement language: (c) The applicant shall provide site drainage information including direction of storm -water run -off, rate control for any increase in impervious surface coverage, volume control (infiltration) where possible based on soil conditions; and any additional information as necessary for compliance with the City's Stormwater Management Plan. (d) The applicant shall provide landscaping in compliance with Section 1103 of City Code and the City's tree preservation policy. The City Engineer has reviewed the above language and concurs that it is enforceable. Staff recommend approval of the amendments. ATTACHMENT Draft Ordinance PC Memo for June 4, 2019 ORDINANCE 567 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1201 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF CITY CODE TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OVERSIZED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Section 1: City Code Section 1201.03 is hereby amended as follows: 1201.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Subd. 2. General building and performance requirements. d. Accessory buildings, structures, uses and equipment. (1) No detached accessory building or structure shall be allowed on any lot without a principal building to which it is accessory. (2) No detached accessory buildings or structures shall exceed 15 feet or one story in height, except as allowed by Section 1201.03 Subd. 4 c. (3) Accessory buildings and structures shall be constructed within the buildable area of the lots as defined in § 1201.02 of this chapter except as provided in subdivision 3c of this section. (4) For single - family and two - family homes, no accessory building, including attached garages, or combination of accessory buildings, but excluding docks and decks, shall exceed three in number, nor 1,200 square feet in area in the R -1A, R -113, R -1C, R- 2A, R -213 and R -3A Districts, nor 1,000 square feet in area in the R -ID, R -2C, R -313 and R -C Districts, except by „ditio a use omit as pfevided f r in § 1201.04 ,. fthis ,.t,apte, Tr add rin conformance with the following conditions_ shall apply: (a) The total area of accessory buildings shall not exceed the floor area of all stories above grade of the principal building. Subject to a conditional use permit as provided for in Section 1201.04 of this chapter.Tthe City Council may grant an exception for greenhouses, as defined herein, under the following conditions: (i) The lot on which the greenhouse is to be located shall contain a minimum of 80,000 square feet of area. In no case shall the lot area be reduced to less than 80,000 square feet in area; (ii) Side yard setbacks for the greenhouse shall be double that required for the district in which the property is located; (iii) The property owner shall landscape around accessory buildings according to a landscape plan approved by the City Council; (iv) In no case shall the total area of accessory buildings exceed 7% of the minimum lot area for the district in which the property is located. (b) In no case shall the total area of accessory buildings exceed 10% of the minimum lot area for the district in which the property is located. (c) in evaluating the eenditional use pefinit, the eity shall take into eensidefation the leeation of existing and pfoposed stfuettffe -s The applicant shall provide site drainage information including direction of storm -water run -off, rate control for any increase in impervious surface coverage, volume control (infiltration) where possible based on soil conditions, and any additional information as necessary for compliance with the City's Stormwater Management Plan. (d) The applicant shall provide landscaping in compliance with Section 1103 of City Code and the City's tree preservation policy. (de) The architectural character of proposed accessory buildings shall be similar and consistent with other buildings on the site and in the area. (d) Properties occupied by nonconforming accessory stigietufes buildings are not allowed to exceed three accessory es buildings, or to exceed 1,000 square feet or 1,200 square feet of accessory floor area, based upon the district in which they are located. Exception: An existing nonconforming accessory building may be allowed to remain nonconforming, and the total number of accessory buildings or the total area of accessory space may be expanded, upon approval of a conditional use permit as provided for in Section 1201.04 of this chapter, and that-the following (i) The applicant can demonstrate that the nonconforming accessory buildings was constructed prior to August 2, 1956. Evidence of date of construction may include, but is not limited to, property surveys, assessor's information, aerial photographs or affidavits from persons who lived on or near the property on or before August 2, 1956. (ii) The nonconforming accessory building must be in sound structural condition with respect to roof, walls, and foundation. If the buildings requires 50% or more replacement, the building must be removed or brought into conformity with this code. The extent of replacement required shall be determined by the Building Official. (iii) The applicant can demonstrate that the nonconforming accessory building_ e—has historic, architectural or cultural value. Specifically, the buildingstfueturt-shall meet one or more criteria established by the city and patterned after the National Park Service standards for historic designation. The historic, architectural or cultural value of the buildings shall be subject to review and comment by a special ad hoc committee, consisting of one member of the Planning Commission, City Council and Park Commission. (iv) The owner of the property shall enter into a development agreement with the city, the purpose of which is to set forth what, if any, repairs may be necessary to place the e—building in good condition. The agreement shall be recorded against the property to ensure that the e—building is kept in good condition. Repairs to the buildings shall be consistent with the original architectural style and materials of the building. Nothing in this section shall prevent the owner from bringing the buildin e—into conformance with this code or removing it from the property. (5) Subject to the provisions of subdivision (4) above, no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one private detached garage buildings for each detached single - family dwelling, except on the approval of a conditional use permit according to the provisions of § 1201.04 of this chapter (6) Every detached single - family dwelling unit erected after the effective date hereof shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on the lot. (7) No accessory uses or equipment, such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers, which generate noise may be located in a required side yard setback, except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 22nd day of July, 2019. SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR ATTEST: SANDIE THONE, CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: June 4, 2019 RE: Zoning Text Amendment: Oversized Accessory Buildings (section 1201.03 Subd. 2 d of the zoning regulations) BACKGROUND Early last year, the City Council asked staff to review the conditional use permit process for oversized accessory buildings and to look at the potential to remove the requirement for a conditional use permit as there has not been a history of rejecting the applications when the conditions listed in the ordinance have been met. By removing the extra process, residents save time and money through the design phase and the City gains additional staff time that can be used for other projects. OPTIONS Attached is the draft of an ordinance amendment to remove the requirement for a conditional use permit. Staff did not remove any of the specific conditions that have been applied to the requests in the past, just the additional Planning Commission and City Council process for most oversized accessory building requests. Should these amendments be passed, an applicant would submit a request for a building permit and staff would review their application as part of that process. The City could also amend and expand the zoning permit language to require an administrative review of the conditions prior to applying for a building permit. Either option is functional. Because the following issues don't come up often, staff did not remove the requirement for a conditional use permit for the following circumstances: Page 2 1. Greenhouses in excess of the allowed amount of floor area of all stories above grade. 2. Nonconforming historic accessory buildings in excess of three or area limitation. 3. More than 1 detached garage per property. The ordinance also includes the following as housekeeping amendments: Section 1201.03 Subd. 2 d (4) was written to apply to buildings, but refers to both buildings and structures. Staff replaced the word structures with buildings. Section 1201.03 Subd. 2 d (4) was amended to exclude decks from the maximum number or area of accessory buildings. Staff does not believe that attached decks have ever been limited by the maximum number or square footage for other accessory buildings. Section 1201.03 Subd. 2 d (5) includes a word - for -word repeat of (6). Staff deleted the unnecessary duplication. NEXT STEPS /REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTICE Because the amendment is part of the zoning regulations, the City must hold a public hearing at the Planning Commission for public review prior to adoption of the ordinance. Notice of any zoning ordinance amendment would require a notice published in both of the official city newspapers at least 10 days prior to holding a public hearing. Staff would publish the notice prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENT Draft Ordinance Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances Subd. 4. General area and building size regulations. a. Purpose. This section identifies general area and building size requirements and exceptions to general height requirements in each zoning district. b. Useable open space. Each multiple - family dwelling site shall contain at least 500 square feet of useable open space as defined in § 1201.02 of this chapter for each dwelling unit contained thereon. C. Height. (1) The building height limits established herein for districts shall not apply to the following: (a) Belfries; (b) Chimneys or flues; (c) Church spires; (d) Cooling towers, mechanical and air conditioning equipment when screened from view; (e) Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space; (f) Elevator penthouses; (g) Flagpoles; (h) Monuments; (i) Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above the limiting height of the building; 0) Water towers; (k) Poles, towers and other structures for essential services subject to subdivision 10 of this section; (1) Television and radio antennas not exceeding 20 feet above the roof. Exception: ham radio antennas over 20 feet may be allowed by conditional use permit as provided for in § 1201.04 of this chapter, provided that: (i) The ham radio must be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); (ii) Construction of the antenna requires a building permit; (iii) The antenna must be located within the buildable area of the lot; (iv) The antenna must be fenced or so designed as to be difficult to climb; (2) The requirements of Minn. Rules 8800.1200 (Criteria for Determining Air Navigation Obstructions), as may be amended, are hereby adopted by reference. American Legal Publishing Corp. 34