Loading...
Staff Report - 11-16-2012CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha1I@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 16 November 2012 RE: Reconsideration — Zoning Permits FILE NO. 405(Zoning) Earlier this year the City Council agreed to reconsider an ordinance establishing zoning permits for various activities, not currently covered by building permits. The original recommendation (see 24 April 2012 memorandum attached) included a relatively short list of items that would be addressed by the amendment. In its discussion, the Council asked the Planning Commission to consider other activities that might be included also. Staff suggested using the General Provisions section of the Code as a menu of potential items for consideration. This "menu" will be discussed on Tuesday night as we formulate a list to present back to the Council before conducting a new public hearing on the draft ordinance. The minutes of the 11 June joint Planning Commission/Council meeting are attached for your review also. Cc: Bill Joynes Scott Zerby 0% #I J$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 24 April 2012 RE: Reconsideration — Zoning Permits FILE NO. 405(Zoning) Early in 2010, the Planning Commission considered an amendment to the Zoning Code that would establish a system of "zoning permits" (see attached staff report, dated 25 February 2010 — Attachment I). The proposal was recommended to the City Council on a 4-2 split vote (see Planning Commission minutes, dated 2 March 2010 and 6 April 2010 — Attachment II and III, respectively). The draft ordinance considered at the public hearing is attached as Attachment IV. The matter was considered by the Council at its 26 April 2010 meeting (see minutes — Attachment V). As you can see the amendment died for lack of a motion. In preparing this year's work program, members of the Planning Commission asked that this matter be brought up for reconsideration. It is scheduled for the 1 May 2012 meeting. For what it is worth, staff continues to believe that this would be a valuable tool for enforcing the City's Zoning Code. Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane is :-«S PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 25 February 2010 RE: Zoning Code — Zoning Permits FILE NO. 405(Zoning) One of the items on the 2010 Work Program is consideration of an amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Code, which would establish a system of zoning permits for activities that are not addressed by the State Building Code. For example, the City has requirements relative to decks and patios that, if less than 30 inches in height, are not covered by the Building Code. The City's main concern has to do with location and hardcover vs. the standard of construction. When a property,owner inquires about permit requirements we simply advise them that no permit is required, but the feature in question must meet zoning requirements. Without a permit process there is no way to monitor the activity for compliance. Further, when some owners find out that no permit required, they also assume no rules apply. Many cities have adopted systems of zoning permits to address such activities. Nowhere is it better explained than in a brochure published by the City of Chanhassen (see Exhibit A, attached). Not only does this explain the City's reason for requiring the permit, but they explain the advantage to the homeowner of having a record of the approved activity on file with the City. Building Inspection and Planning staff have assembled a list of projects that would require a zoning permit in Shorewood: • Accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in floor area* • Fences • Driveways • Temporary signs • Sport and tennis courts ATTACHMENT I #I J* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Zoning Permits 25 February 2010 • Patios and sidewalks • Retaining walls higher than three feet (no separate permit required when a building permit is required for grading) • Above -ground fireplaces and cooking facilities, but not including portable appliances *Staff also proposes that the City's requirement for small sheds be made consistent with the State Building Code. Currently, if a shed is less than 100 square feet in area, it does not require a building permit. The Building Code allows sheds less than 120 square feet without a permit. Our suggestion is that a zoning permit would be required for sheds less than 120 square feet in area. Use of a zoning permit process also helps to minimize confusion. When a building permit process is used for zoning matters, there is some assumption that there is a provision in the Building Code relative to the activity. The zoning permit would point people in the right direction — the Zoning Code. It is recommended that Section 1201.07 of the Shorewood City Code be amended to read: "ADMINISTRATION: CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; ZONING PERMITS", with the items listed above as being subject to the permit process. With respect to fees, staff suggests that the charge for zoning permits be kept minimal. Currently, we charge $20 for fence and sign permits, and that is what is suggested for a zoning permit. This basically covers some minimal paperwork and one inspection. This item will be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, 2 March 2010. If the Planning Commission is in agreement with staff, a public hearing will be scheduled for 6 April 2010. Cc: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck Mary Tietjen Joe Pazandak Patti Helgesen -2- `19 FAR L i WU a) a) E cn c E (-u coLj co — CLr-- (D 00 00 T- T-- N C� CnN -E (N LO U-)N r- C� CL w CO E > a) U) o U) z U) cn M m c- c CD c QJ a) U) m x cn C) p, 0 C� r Lo Exhibit A co C- u) c va)•-�� cu C in a CU !n C6 C C = N to t mL O O >, C6 O O CL O >O+ � C' O O CU O M a E J O CO - > (U C N O CU �-+ CM In V L C U_ E -Cg- � N 0 a j+ E 2 s ..SA. C6 U -fl N LO N cu U) (n O L- N O O O CZ O U 'a E w E m w w EL a c E � � CD (D O E N O O E C A L -0 p O N m O U 'a O m L in C3 O .(D IL "' O C > LO N Q (� _ N C O '� 'S C C N O N n O N C2 0) N M CO R5 0 O > t a. Q 'a O C Z Cv a) a) U m OQ�4=� a.- U (d 0- L L M C L O L • `i(��a ""cu cu O L ❑ � cn � N E L 'Zn- Ln O � e1s O L p�0 E �d ® M O Cy f i�✓i V x y 'a M Un 0) O C O e " Q) ( � v m a O - ( 'O U N U -f- N 'S N p m �".`L "O, > .a "C O O `— > Z3 C O L 4-• CO O L .0 = c6 V Q .+ , p o `;' O _C C v W a) O ?� :3 a) O O .E � •C m uJ .� �/C� /�(6 C � cn /�O O ZM � Cl- CD ��''�°• dam- y_ p S (n •�: a) (n L Qi <n = E O g� v ZS N E, V CL L N V C a' O CD E o '' C .0 > C C � 4— U O L a)cn _ O p Cm Q E E L O O cm =L a_ .O 0 O C w= a3 C O N L0 N N CD C to Q o L-0 in co m p V O Q in - a O U N O C c Q -C - H O . 0 m to C O C Vm to a3 � �C CDL O co = ) C E .C: = Qi O cn C a) .E E E N O .W Q CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 2 MARCH 2O10 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Hasek, Hutchins, Ruoff, Vilett, and Davis; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 16, 2010 Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 16, 2010 as presented. Motion passed 6/0/1 (Vilett abstained). 1. ZONING PERMITS Director Nielsen explained that there are a number of activities, such as driveways, patios, temporary signs, etc. that are not covered by the Building Code, or are inappropriately handled by Building Permit. These activities are however regulated by the Zoning Code. In an effort to ensure these regulations are followed, it is being recommended that a system of Zoning Permits be established. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Hutchins regarding fences and docks, Nielsen said that only fences that are six feet or higher are covered by the Building Code, whereas zoning regulations apply to all fences. The issue of docks was studied just a few years ago when it was decided not to require permits for them as they are also regulated by the LMCD. Director Nielsen said currently sheds under 100 square feet or less do not require a permit. Therefore, they would become subject to a Zoning Permit. Furthermore, the code should be amended so that it refers to sheds 120 square feet or less, making it consistent with the Building Code. Commissioner Arnst asked if the plastic or canvas "garages" are regulated. Nielsen said they are subject to the same rules as sheds or other buildings, and any violation of the rules is subject to enforcement on a complaint -basis. Chair Geng suggested having something on the City website informing people about the requirements for these canvas structures. Commissioner Hasek said he thought the $20 fee is too low and suggested it be at least $30. Nielsen said he hadn't suggested raising the fee because he didn't want it to become a deterrent. Arnst said she thought it should be based on actual cost to some degree. Nielsen said he would find out what the loaded labor rate is for the Building Inspector and report that information at the next meeting on March 161h along with a draft ordinance for review. ATTACHMENT II PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 March 2010 Page 2 of 3 LHasekmoved, Hutchins seconded, Approving staff's recommendation to schedule a Public Hearing ril 6, 2010 for consideration of a Code Amendment to establish a system of Zoning Permits. passed 7/0. 2. BYLAWS Director Nielsen stated that, as suggested at January's training seminar, the rules, or by-laws, of the Planning Commission should be reviewed annually to ensure they are up to date. He provided a model ordinance published by the League of Minnesota Cities for review. He said the main item that stands out to him is that Shorewood's rules, as contained in Chapter 201 of the City Code, does not have a residency requirement for Planning Commission membership. Chair Geng suggested that the Code state that the Commission's Liaisons interact with the other Commissions on an as -needed basis, which would reflect what they actually do. The Commissioners discussed the merits of the model ordinance, deciding to incorporate some of its subsections into the current Chapter 201 of the City Code. A draft amendment of the Chapter will be reviewed at the next meeting on March 16'h 3. DISCUSSION — SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT Director Nielsen shared his thoughts regarding the advantages of a unified approach rather than a piece- meal form of development of the Smithtown Crossing area parcels. He said it may be helpful to have the benefits laid out when presenting the concept for the area to landowners. The unified approach would maximize exposure to County Road 19; maximize the view of Gideon Glen; allow drainage to be more efficient and less expensive; be developed as a P.U.D. which would allow flexibility with setbacks; parking could be shared; hardcover would be less restricted; access could be consolidated; more pedestrian -friendly; businesses would be better identified; City assistance could be available via T.I.F. and other incentives. These benefits would generally not be available with a piecemeal approach. Nielsen presented a slide show of photographs of commercial business buildings which contain certain elements that create residential character to various degrees. Commissioner Ruoff inquired about the plan for the southeast quadrant and landscaping requirements. Nielsen responded that it has its own set of issues, so the focus has been on the northwest quadrant for the time being. As for landscaping, he said from the LRT Trail crossing to the north, and all the way to Excelsior, commercial properties shall be landscaped consistent with the Co. Rd. 19 Corridor Study. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Arnst distributed a handout containing examples of sustainability. Commissioner Hasek requested that the Work Program schedule be adjusted to allow discussion of sustainability throughout the year and to be a common thread in all topics of discussion. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA The March 16, 2010 Agenda will include review of draft Ordinance amendments regarding Zoning Permits and By-laws; appointment of a Chair and Vice -Chair for 2010; determine Liaisons to Council for remainder of the year; continued discussion of Smithtown Crossing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 April 2010 Page 2 of 4 the same criteria and is subject to other restrictions as outlined in the staff report dated March 31, 2010. The applicant's lot does meet the criteria required by the Code, and the proposed house will conform with the R-lA District setbacks. Tom Velmer, the applicant's contractor, said that they would like to keep the existing garage for storage as it is currently being used and, if necessary, tear it down after the house is constructed. He said the applicant would also like to keep the deck and shed by the lake if there is any way to do so. Mary Edwards, property owner, reiterated that she would like to keep the garage and shed. She said there is a motorized ramp for getting down to the lakeshore which ends at the deck and shed area and her elderly mother couldn't get down to the lake any other way. Commissioner Vilett asked if the nonconforming structures would have to be removed if this were a remodel rather than a rebuild. Director Nielsen responded that if just a portion of the house were being replaced through remodeling, and the replacement represented 50 percent or more of its value, the same conditions would apply. The same rule applies if an addition to a house equals 50 percent or more of increase in gross floor area. Nielsen pointed out that the ramp and stairs are permitted to remain, including a landing area near the lake up to 4 by 8 feet in size. The only option for keeping the nonconforming structures is to apply for a variance and demonstrate a hardship. Commissioner Arnst asked if the garage could remain during construction. Nielsen said the practice has been to allow that and require an escrow deposit to ensure its removal after construction is complete. Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M. Commissioner Hasek asked if it was clear where the bluff is located on the lot because it appears that the house could be moved closer toward the lake which would allow for a deeper garage to compensate for storage space lost with the garage removal. Nielsen said the bluff line is very distinct at the site, but it's possible that there is room to shift the house location. Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the recommendations outlined in the staff report dated March 31, 2010, and to recommend that the existing garage be allowed to remain on the site during construction and removed no later than two weeks after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Motion passed 6/0. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CODE AMENDMENT FOR ZONING PERMITS Director Nielsen said, as has been discussed at previous meetings, a system of Zoning Permits is proposed to require a permit for activities that are not adequately covered by the State Building Code, but are regulated by the Zoning Code. He said he plans to prepare a brochure for Zoning Permits as a means of information and education about the requirements. Hutchins moved, Vilett seconded, to recommend approval of the Code Amendment for the establishment of a system of Zoning Permits. Commissioner Davis commented that, as a homeowner, she thought this amendment was a form of micromanagement. Commissioner Arnst agreed. The Commissioners discussed the pros and cons of the proposed code. Motion passed 4/2 (Davis and Arnst opposed). ATTACHMENT III r CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 11 March 2010 RE: Zoning Permits — Preliminary Draft FILE NO. 405(Zoning) Attached is a preliminary draft of the language establishing zoning permits for activities that do not require building permits, but for which the City desires to monitor. As always, deletions to the existing text are shown with r*r��keetAs and additions are shown in red. Relative to the Planning Commission's concern about what fee to charge, we found that the Building Official's loaded labor rate is approximately $45 per hour. Based on roughly one half hour of administrative/inspection time, we are suggesting a minimal fee of $25 ($20 had previously been suggested). The amendment will be scheduled for a public hearing on 6 April. Cc: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck Mary Tietjen Patti Helgesen Joe Pazandak ATTACHMENT IV .. 4-r$ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1201.07 ADMINISTRATION, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; ZONING PERMITS. Subd. 1. Certificate of occupancy. a. No building or structure hereafter erected or moved, or that portion of an existing structure or building erected or moved, shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose whatsoever until a certificate of occupancy shall have been issued by the Building Official stating that the building or structure complies with all of the provisions within this chapter. Subdue: b. The certificate shall be applied for coincidentally with the application for a building permit, conditional use permit and/or variance and shall be issued within ten days after the Building Official shall have found the building or structure satisfactory and given final inspection. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by City Council resolution. Subd. 2. Zoning Permits. a. A zoning permit shall be required for activities that do not require building permits but for which it is necessary to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setbacks, impervious surface coverage, structure height, etc.: (1) Accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in area. (2) Fences. (3) Driveways. (4) Temporary signs. (5) Sport and tennis courts. (6) Patios and sidewalks. (7) Retaining walls higher than three feet (no separate permit required when a building permit is required for grading). (8) Above -ground fireplaces and cooking facilities, but not including portable appliances. (1987 Code, 1201.07) CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 26, 2010 Page 7 of 14 Councilmember Bailey stated he would be opposed to changing the language to include a "for cause" provision. Just cause provisions are needed for termination of people employed by the City whose livelihood is dependant on Council's rationale actions. He did not think that was needed for volunteer commissioners. He agreed that Council should be able to remove a commissioner from their position without just cause. He noted he would not take such a decision lightly, and he couldn't imagine a situation in which he would make such a decision. Nevertheless, he did think councils should have the right to do that. Bailey then stated he did not think that the reference to the Planning Commission Chair excusing absences needed to be added back to Councils revised Section 201.05 Attendance. He reiterated a statement he made during Council's April 12 meeting that he thought the bar was set low when requiring 50 percent attendance at the Commission's meetings. Councilmember Turgeon stated with regard to the statement "In addition, failure to attend four -consecutive regular meetings without the excuse of the Chair of the Planning Commission shall be considered as formal notice of resignation" the Planning Commission thought Council should consider removing "without the excuse of the Chair of the Planning Commission". Bailey stated he did not think there was inconsistency. He could envision a commissioner missing four consecutive meetings, for example due to an illness, and the chair excusing that absence. Mayor Lizee and Councilmembers Bailey and Zerby thought that decision should be left up to the Chair. Lizee thought it would be common courtesy for a commissioner to let the chair know of an extended absence. Turgeon thought it should be up to the entire Commission to decide to excuse an extended absence. Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 466, "An Ordinance Amending the Shorewood City Code to Replace Existing Chapter 201 in its Entirety with a Revised Chapter 201 (Planning Commission)" as included in the meeting packet for this meeting, and Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 10-020, "A Resolution Approving Publication of Ordinance No. 466 by Title and Summary." Councilmember Turgeon stated if Council accepts the by-laws for the Planning Commission then she recommended the by-laws for the Park Commission be consistent with the Planning Commission by- laws. Motion passed 4/1 with Turgeon dissenting. Bailey moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Staff to review the by-laws for the Park Commission and to draft language to conform with the language in the by-laws for the Planning Commission, and to route the draft amendment to the Park Commission for comment. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Code Amendment — Establishing Zoning Permits Director Nielsen stated Staff has recommended an amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Code establishing a system of zoning permits where the use of building permits is not appropriate. Staff proposes that the following types of projects require a zoning permit in the City: accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in floor area; fences (if a fence is not over 6 feet the Building Code doesn't address it); driveways; temporary signs; sport and tennis courts; patios and sidewalks; retaining walls higher than three feet; and, above -ground fireplaces and cooking facilities, but not including portable appliances. Without a permit process, there is no way to monitor these activities for compliance. Nielsen noted the Planning Commission voted on a 4/2 vote to recommend the Zoning Code amendment for zoning permits. ATTACHMENT V CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 26, 2010 Page 8 of 14 Councilmember Bailey asked if the zoning permit for driveways is only for new driveways. Director Nielsen responded it would include replacement driveways as well. He explained if the driveway was too close to a lot line it may have to be moved. Councilmember Woodruff stated it's his understanding that the two Planning Commissioners who dissented on recommending the amendment expressed concern about "creeping big government". He indicated he could appreciate their perspective. He questioned how effective the City could be in getting residents to comply with the zoning permit process. With regard to a zoning permit for temporary signs, he asked if a resident would have to get a permit to put up a garage sale sign. Director Nielsen stated garage sale signs are exempt provided a resident doesn't have more than four sales in a year. Woodruff stated he would be more comfortable if temporary signs were not included in the list for zoning permits because everything else on the list is permanent structure. Nielsen stated currently a building permit application is required for temporary signs, but Staff believes that is the wrong application to make. Councilmember Zerby stated he agreed with Councilmember Woodruff comment regarding the size of government and the burden it places on the City. He questioned how this could be enforced. He stated the $20 permit fee would not cover Staff s time. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended the fee be raised to $25. Zerby stated he is not in favor of this zoning permit process. Councilmember Turgeon stated the two Planning Commissioners who dissented thought this would be micromanaging residents. Part of the dissention was about the items listed was not all inclusive. Things such big play areas are not covered. She expressed that she personally doesn't have an issue with including driveways. She stated the current Building Code states sheds less than 100 square feet do not require a zoning permit, yet the State's requirement is for sheds under 120 square feet. Director Nielsen stated the entire proposed list is more restrictive than the State's. Councilmember Turgeon stated she doesn't agree with a lot that is on the list. She then stated it appears this system for zoning permits will ensure people don't encroach on another person's property. This process lets residents know there are rules that must be adhered to. Councilmember Zerby stated there are rules in place today. Director Nielsen stated the rules that pertain to the list of items are already in existence; what's missing is a permit requirement. This item died for lack of a motion. 9. ENGMEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accepting Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Bituminous Seal Coating of Street in 2010 Engineer Landini read the list of 38 roadways scheduled for bituminous seal coating in 2010. He noted there is $214,400 budgeted for this effort. The bid opening is scheduled for Wednesday May 19, 2010, at 10:00 A.M. Landini explained the resolution included in the meeting packet states the advertisement for bids will be inserted in the Construction Bulletin. Unfortunately, the City received notice on April 22, 2010, that the Construction Bulletin is no longer advertising. If approved, the resolution will be rectified to specify where the advertisement for bids will be published. Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 10-0199 "A Resolution Approving Specifications and Estimate and Authorizing Advertisements for Bide for Bituminous Seal Coat CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Hutchins stated this draft of the Report includes a lot of comments from residents. He then stated he thought it important to include text explaining the Concept Sketch. He noted a concept plan is one example of what it could be. Councilmember Zerby thanked the Planning Commission and Staff for the efforts that went into conducting the Study and preparing the Report. He noted that his property is located close to the Study Area so he has a personal as well as professional interest in this. 3. DISCUSSION ON ZONING PERMITS Director Nielsen explained that the Planning Commission wants to have the task of potentially amending the Zoning Code to establish zoning permits put back on its 2012 work program. Early in 2010 the Commission considered such an amendment to the Code. The Commission recommended approval of such an amendment on a 5/2 vote. The permits would be for a small list of items. Things not covered under the Building Code that are provided for in the Zoning Code but do not have any permit process associated with them. He noted the City has a permit for signs. He stated there have been instances that arose over the years where if the residents knew what the rules were, problems encountered when building without a building permit could have been avoided. Nielsen then explained the most significant thing that would be addressed with a zoning permit would be driveways. People may install driveways that are wider or closer to the property line than the City's Ordinance allows or they may seriously violate the hardcover restrictions. He cited an example of such a problem. Within two weeks of Council not taking action on the Commission's recommendation to establish zoning permits during Council's April 26, 2010, meeting the City received a call from a property owner asking how close to their property a driveway could be constructed. It is five feet. That individual thought his neighbor had put in a driveway that actually went on to their property which they had. Another item that would be addressed would be patios. He cited another example. An individual was going to do work on his property. Staff checked the property file and found out that a couple of years before that the then property owner was required to remove some hardcover in order to get a permit for something they wanted to do. That individual removed a ground level deck to reduce his hardcover area. Unfortunately, after that the property owner put is a ground cover patio. The current owner now has hardcover issues. When residents call the City and ask if a permit is needed for things such as driveways, patios and smaller sheds (sheds less than 120 square feet in area) Staff explains a permit is not required but the City does have zoning requirements. Nielsen related that Councilmember Hotvet, as liaison to the Planning Commission, had suggested Staff research what other cities do with regard to these types of things. Staff found out few cities have zoning permits. But, many cities require permits for things such as driveways, fences, and smaller sheds. They just don't call them zoning permits. Nielsen stated that in the past Staff has suggested that zoning permits would be a valuable tool, and he thought the Planning Commission shares that perspective. He explained the City of Chanhassen put together a brochure which explains what a zoning permit is, when it is required and how to apply for one. That is not only of benefit to that City but of benefit to the residents. He then stated it gets very messy for the second and third owner of a property who inherit a violation to correct it. He explained that if the codes are not enforced uniformly it ends up punishing those individuals who follow the rules. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission wants to know if Council is receptive to the idea of zoning permits before it holds a public hearing on this topic. Commissioner Hasek stated that from his perspective zoning permits would be extremely beneficial just to protect all property owners in the City. He expressed that he did not think it is appropriate to expect the residents to monitor what goes on with development or properties adjacent to their property. He cited his personal example where a neighbor, who did have at least a survey sketch, built a fence where the fence in the back was on the neighbor's property and the front was on Hasek's property. If that had been surveyed and a permit required that would likely not have happened. He noted that he has not called the neighbor on it, but it could become an issue if/when one of them sells their property. Chair Geng stated his support for it is very similar. He cited his personal example. When he and his wife purchased their home 12 years ago they had a survey done a few months later. The survey revealed that the previous owner had built a large, stone retaining wall on the neighbor's property. They drew up a document that was recorded with Hennepin County making it clear that they did not want to take the neighbor's property through adverse possession. He stated he did not think the City is doing a service to its residents by requiring residents to police each other. He noted that he is sensitive that this could be considered a "big brother" type of thing. That the City is getting too intrusive. He stated he has no desire for a large, intrusive government. He did think the City should promote some degree of uniformity, and remove this aspect of favoritism. He clarified he did not think the zoning permits have to be expensive. He thought it would help people get along. Commissioner Davis stated she agrees some things need to be managed, and she cautioned against micromanaging things. She noted that she will be wary with her vote. She stated she thought the permits need to be low cost to get residents to comply. Commissioner Hutchins stated much of what comes up are boundary issues. He cited a personal example. He applied for and got a permit to put up a two -rail fence. The survey discovered that on one side of his property the neighbor had installed their irrigation system on his property. On the other side that neighbor installed their invisible fence on his property. He noted that he had a boundary survey done to identify where the stakes are; not a full blown survey. He stated boundary issues cause problems for neighbors. Some of the emotion can be eliminated through the permitting process. He noted he thought the cost for a permit should be minimal. When the Planning Commission discussed this the last time it thought $25 would be a reasonable fee. He stated a boundary survey costs $300 — $500. Councilmember Hotvet stated she supports revisiting this topic because she was not on the Council the last time it came up for consideration. She then stated that when she and her family moved into the City 12 years ago they had no idea what the rules and regulations were. Having a check list clarifies things for residents. She went on to state that Shorewood is an older community. People are renovating things. It is different when compared to a relatively new, developing community. Commissioner Davis stated she thought the City in general has colossal boundary issues. She cited the example where the American Legion hired a licensed surveyor to do a full blown survey. Hennepin County was involved. Yet, to this day it is unclear what the boundaries are. She commented that most property owners in the City have pencil -drawn surveys. Councilmember Siakel stated that "Minnesota nice" goes away when issues with property lines arise. She commented that it is never a problem until a property owner decides to sell. She stated that she agrees CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 5 of 7 that tightening up the process would be helpful. She then stated that process needs to be easy and cost effective. It should not be an arduous task. Councilmember Zerby asked how to go about determining which items should require a zoning permit. For example, a large playground system is not on the list. He questioned if that is because it is technically considered a movable system. He stated some of those types of systems are too large to move. He commented that there was discussion about irrigation systems, yet there is nothing on the zoning permit list that is below ground. He stated that some property owners put pipes below ground to get the drainage to the road. He asked where the line should be drawn for requiring zoning permits. He stated the boundary issues are the biggest thing. He questioned if it may be best to just consider those things that are within ten feet of the property line. He stated he would like to have it in a simpler context. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission came up with a list of things that could be included. He suggested shortening the list if Council thinks the list is too picky. He stated signs are already covered and real estate signs are allowed as long as they meet the rules. Temporary signs are handled through an administrative process. Things that are hard to correct, such as driveways, should be covered by zoning permits. He stated that establishing zoning permits is not a panacea. But, he thought it would go a long way toward eliminating problems. Councilmember Zerby stated if a fence is constructed over the property line he asked what the corrective measure would be. Director Nielsen stated it would have to be moved. Zerby stated if a permit is required and it is constructed over the property line he asked what the recourse would be. Nielsen stated it would have to be moved. He noted that before the fence is constructed there would be an inspection to assess that it would be constructed in the correct spot. He stated that at least this way the current owner would be the person dealing with the issue. Zerby stated that from his vantage point the zoning permit process would be more educational then anything. Director Nielsen stated that is largely true. Nielsen noted that when an applicant picks up a permit there is a handout that goes with it. Councilmember Siakel asked Director Nielsen what items are being proposed for a zoning permit. Director Nielsen stated it could be as minimal as driveways, patios, ground level decks, and small sheds. Nielsen commented that could be determined based on input received during a public hearing. Councilmember Zerby cited a personal example where his neighbor planted trees along the property line and now that the trees have grown there is a lot of overhang over his property. He stated he would consider a lot of items to be included on the list. Commissioner Hasek stated there is someone in his neighborhood who installed a play structure that is right outside of another neighbor's window. He asked if there are items that should be included on the list that have not been considered yet. Councilmember Woodruff stated he is troubled by what is on the list of items the Planning Commission proposed for zoning permits the last time it considered this item. And, there may be some items that should be included on the list that are not currently on it. He suggested the Commission review the list and determine if the items on the list will accomplish what the Commission wants zoning permits to accomplish. He commented that for him there is no difference between a large play structure and a tennis court. He cited an old example of the location of a garage on a former resident's property. The comment CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 6 of 7 on the location of a garage was a person does not own the view. If a person wants to own the view then they should buy the property next to theirs. He stated caution should be exercised when trying to regulate where residents locate things on their property. The then provided an example where there is a 10-foot by 20-foot garden in a middle of the property and the person wants to put chicken wire around it. He asked if that would require a zoning permit for a fence should zoning permits come to fruition. Director Nielsen explained that one of the items on the Planning Commission's 2012 work program is to review the General Provisions Section of the Zoning Code. That is where most of the items recommended for zoning permits are found in the code. Each of the items in the General Provisions could be assessed as to whether or not it should require a zoning permit as part of that review process. Councilmember Woodruff commented that based on the list a permit would not be required to install a basketball hoop pole on their driveway. Yet, that could encroach on the neighbor's property. He stated there needs to be careful thought given to what items are proposed for requiring zoning permits. Mayor Lizee asked if the zoning permit process is working for Chanhassen. Director Nielsen noted that Staff has not spoken with representatives at Chanhassen since this was considered the last time. Nielsen stated he will follow up with them. He then stated he thought the Cities of Eagan and Edina both have good programs. Mayor Lizee stated that part of the older discussion was about play structures. A few years ago there was also discussion about skate board ramps being built in front of a property owner's house. The ramp didn't bother the owners but the neighbors had to live with seeing it. Director Nielsen stated play structures were taken off the list because they are considered somewhat temporary. Commissioner Davis stated there is the question of how safely a play structure is installed. Commissioner Hasek asked if there is any liability for the City if it were to permit a play structure. Is the City actually implying that it is safe? Director Nielsen explained this code would not be warranting the construction of any of the items on a zoning permit list. There is no standard in the Building Code for them. Councilmember Siakel asked how the Planning Commission came up with the list of eight items it proposed require zoning permits when this was last discussed. Director Nielsen explained it was based on the City's history and experiences as well as Chanhassen's program. Nielsen stated that invisible fences notoriously go over a property line. Commissioner Davis stated that when her family installed their invisible fence 25 years ago they were told they didn't need a permit and to put the fence where they think it needed to be located. It is located in the right of way. Councilmember Siakel stated she would like the Planning Commission to draft of list of what it thinks should require zoning permits. Director Nielsen reiterated the best way to do it is to consider each of the items in the General Provisions of the Zoning Code as to whether or not they warrant requiring a zoning permit.