The URL can be used to link to this page

Nonconformities City Code UpdateAFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER I do solemly swear that the notice, as per the proof, was published in the edition of the Laker Pioneer with the known office of issue being located in the county of: CARVER with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for 1 successive week(s); the first insertion being on 06/14/2025 and the last insertion being on 06/14/2025. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. §580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in §580.033, subd. 1, clause (1) or (2). If the newspaper's known office of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in the latter county. By: Eks&nated Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me on 06/14/2025 NotaryPublic Darlene Marie MacPherson T + Notary Public >= Minnesota �'' • "° a My Commission Bores Jan. 31, 2029 Rate Information: (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch CITY OF SHOREWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA SUMMARY PUBLICATION ORDINANCE 620: AMENDING SHOREWOOD CITY CODE CHAPTER 1201 TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION FOR NONCONFORMITIES Section 1. At a duly called meeting on May 27, 2025, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. 620 enti- tled "Amending Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities". The City Council adopted a lengthy ordi- nance amending City Code Chap- ter 1201 (Zoning Regulations) to amend several sections of the City Code relative to nonconforrnities (including but not limited to defini- tions and performance standards) to provide for regulations for non- conforming properties consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's direction. The purpose of this sum- mary is to inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance but to publish only a summary of the ordinance with the full ordi- nance being on file in the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours and available on the city's website. Section 2. Ordinance 620 Amending Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities shall take effect upon publication in the City's offi- cial newspaper. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shore- wood on May 27, 2025. a/s Sandie Thone, City Clerk Published in the Laker Pioneer June 14, 2025 1474399 �SCANNED Ad ID 1474399 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I do solemly swear that the notice, as per the proof, was published in the edition of the SS Mtka Excelsior Eden Prairie with the known office of issue being located in the county of. HENNEPIN with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for l successive week(s); the first insertion being on 06/12/2025 and the last insertion being on 06/12/2025. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. §580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in §580.033, subd. 1, clause (1) or (2). If the newspaper's known office of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in the latter county. By: a Designated Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me on 06/12/2025 Notary Public Marie MacPherson (&.Dya.lene Notary Public Minnesota ommission E:�ires Jan. 31, 20294111, IF Rate Information: (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch CITY OF SHOREWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA SUMMARY PUBLICATION ORDINANCE 620: AMENDING SHOREWOOD CITY CODE CHAPTER 1201 TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION FOR NONCONFORMITIES Section 1. At a duly called meeting on May 27, 2025, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. 620 enti- tled "Amending Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities". The City Council adopted a lengthy ordi- nance amending City Code Chap- ter 1201 (Zoning Regulations) to amend several sections of the City Code relative to nonconformities (including but not limited to defini- tions and performance standards) to provide for regulations for non- conforming properties consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's direction. The purpose of this sum- mary is to inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance but to publish only a summary of the ordinance with the full ordi- nance being on file in the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours and available on the city's website. Section 2. Ordinance 620 Amending Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities shall take effect upon publication in the City's offi- cial newspaper. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shore- wood on May 27, 2025. a/a Sandie Thone, City Clerk Published in the Sun Sailor June 12, 2025 1474396 9SCANNED Ad ID 1474396 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 25-051 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 620 REGARDING ZONING REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION FOR NONCONFORMITIES WHEREAS, at a duly called meeting on May 27, 2025, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. 620 entitled "Amending Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities"; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a lengthy ordinance amending City Code Chapter 1201 (Zoning Regulations) to amend several sections of the City Code relative to nonconformities (including but not limited to definitions and performance standards) to provide for regulations for nonconforming properties consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's direction; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this summary is to inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance but to publish only a summary of the ordinance with the full ordinance being on file in the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours and available on the city's website. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: 1. The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. 620 clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish Ordinance No. 620 by title and summary, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, Subdivision 4. Such summary is to be substantially the same as the attached ordinance. A full copy of the ordinance is available at Shorewood City Hall and on the city's website. Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 27th day of May, 2025. Jennifer Labadie, Mayor At st: `- W� Sandie Thone, City Clerk 1 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 27th day of 2 May, 2025. 3 4 Viellaeo- m 7 ATTEST: 8 9 10 SANDIE THONE, CITY CLERK JENNIFER LABADIE, MAYOR 14 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2025 Page 3 of 12 Finance Director Schmuck introduced Justin Nilson from Abdo, LLC, and explained that he would be reviewing the annual report. Justin Nilson, Abdo, LLC, gave a brief overview of the audit results, General Fund results, Governmental Funds, Special Revenue Fund Balances, Debt Service Funds, Capital Projects Fund Balances, Water Fund, Sewer Fund, Stormwater Management Utility Fund, Recycling Fund, Cash and Investment Balances, and Key Performance Indicators. He explained that they had issued a clean/unmodified opinion and found no legal compliance findings. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked if there was anything Mr. Nilson saw through this process that he felt the City was going well or could improve upon. Mr. Nilson stated that having a clean audit is a positive sign for the City and noted that he did not see any financial red flags from the City. Councilmember Gorham asked Mr. Nilson how he would interpret the City's debt management over the past five years. Mr. Nilson explained that it was encouraging that the City had a flat ten- year levy payment for debt service funds and noted that there was a significant portion in the Enterprise Funds and would recommend the City continue to work towards a capital improvement plan to ensure the resources are there to make the debt service payments in the future. Sanschagrin moved, Maddy seconded, Accepting the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, as presented. Motion passed. 5. PARKS 6. PLANNING A. Report from Commissioner Longo on May 6, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commissioner Longo highlighted some of the discussion and recommendations that took place at the May 6, 2025, Planning Commission meeting and answered Council questions. B. Nonconformities City Code Amendments Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-wide Planning Director Griffiths reviewed proposed City Code amendments related to nonconformities to address inconsistencies between the City's ordinance and State or case law regarding non - conformities. He noted that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval but had asked staff to double-check some of the language before it was brought before the Council, and following review, City Attorney Shepherd found that the proposed language was appropriate. Councilmember Sanschagrin noted that with flexibility, there would be trade-offs in relation to the integrity of the rules and asked Planning Director Griffiths to address the balance that the City was trying to achieve with this action. CITY OF SHOREWOC D REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2025 Page 4 of 12 Planning Director Gr ffiths explained that regulating nonconformities was always a balancing act and shared varianCE examples of how that would play out. He noted that the City would still be receiving quite a few variance requests due to the nature of what has been built, but the proposed amendments will allow for implementing the Comprehensive Plan direction on what the balance should be. Councilmember G ham stated that the proposed update was vague and against the Comprehensive Pla i because it is relaxing things and allowing nonconformities to remain. He shared examples of where he felt the language used was the opposite of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the information on State law had not been included in the packet and asked what the City was tiying to fix. He stated that it was not transparent because it just asked the Council to trust theirl legal counsel. Planning Director G iffiths stated that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan process gave clear direction to reduce the nui nber of variances that were needed for common-sense projects on nonconforming lots and stated that the Comprehensive Plan supported the proposed changes. He agreed that mu h of the language around nonconformities was vague, but explained that it came directly from "tate law and, in some cases, legal precedent. City Attorney Shep erd stated that within State law and City Code, as presented, there was still a general desire to ecrease nonconformities but still give property owners the ability to use their lot. Councilmember Gotham asked to see the State law that has been referenced as being the reason for some of the Ian age choices in what has been proposed. City Attorney Shepherd referenced 462, 357, Subdivisi n 1 E, and explained that people could look it up. Councilmember G rham asked if items h.1. and h.2. contradicted each other. Planning Director Griffiths stated that they do not contradict each other. City Attorney Shep ierd highlighted some other portions of the language that are from State law, related to discontin Aation of an occupancy for one year or more, or damage to the nonconforming structure of fifty p rcent or more. He explained that these areas were the principal provisions designed to discon inue nonconformities. Councilmember M ddy explained that this was saying that when people buy property in the City, they are allowed t use it as they bought it, and if they want to modify it, they can only modify it via the zoning cod and asked where the controversy was on this item. Councilmember G rham explained that it was that the city did not have any variance control over almost everything Councilmember Maddy noted that if they were not increasing their nonconformity, thE re would not be a variance for anyone building a new house on any new lot, and this action jusi gives staff the ability to say yes to these requests when they are not increasing the nonconformity Planning Director riffiths stated that the Council would still have a substantial amount of variance authority under th s Ordinance and noted that this only applied to grandfathered/nonconforming properties and rer iinded the Council that every other requirement in the Code would have to be met. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2025 Page 5 of 12 City Attorney Shepherd noted that the variance process would not be the proper framework for looking at nonconformities. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked for examples of recent variance requests that the Council would no longer review under these proposed amendments. Planning Director Griffiths gave an example of some recent variances that the Council had approved on Manor Road and Cajed Lane. Councilmember Sanschagrin explained his reasons for being fearful that this may result in unintended consequences and shared some concerns that had been shared by former Mayor Zerby. Mayor Labadie stated that she disagreed with the concern shared by former Mayor Zerby because there were already nonconformities, and these property owners just wanted to do something with their land, and it was not a lack of transparency. Councilmember Gorham referenced language that stated that a property owner could expand a nonconformity in different ways. Planning Director Griffiths pointed out the language that came directly from the State Statute and explained the portion of the Ordinance that gave the City the authority it needed to regulate the nonconforming structures appropriately. He stated that for alterations and expansions, some criteria allow limited additions or expansions of a nonconforming use, but they still have to meet every other requirement of the City Code. He noted that all of the proposed language was working together to provide guardrails, and restrict nonconformities, but still allowing flexibility, and if people want to do something outside of that process, then it would be back to a variance application. Councilmember Gorham asked for examples of a nonconforming structure that met all the other City Code requirements. Planning Director Griffiths referenced the Cajed Lane portico situation mentioned earlier, where the front setback was not met, but the lot was substantially deep enough that the rear and side yard setbacks could be met. He stated that another example would be lot size, and it was a lot that had been approved by the City. However, zoning regulations have changed since that time, and now they want to redevelop the lot and replace a single-family home with another single-family home. Councilmember Maddy asked for the difference in cost to get a variance rather than just a building permit. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the variance process has a one -thousand -dollar application fee upfront, and then legal and engineering fees are billed back to the applicant through escrow, so the overall cost is between one and two thousand dollars. He noted that building permits start at around seventy-five dollars, but they would also need one with the variance process. Councilmember Maddy stated that this would save those residents a few thousand dollars for everyone who was not increasing their nonconformity. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the variance process was also more time-consuming and took between ninety and one hundred twenty days, which can also be a substantial cost for the property owner. Maddy moved, Labadie seconded, Ordinance 620, Amending Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities. Motion failed 2/2 (Gorham and Sanschagrin opposed). CITY OF SHOREW D REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2025 Page 6 of 12 Mayor Labadie staied that there have been numerous meetings in a row where the votes have ended up deadloc d because they were missing a Councilmember. She asked if there would be a full Council pr sent at the next meeting. City Administrator evinski stated that there was already a full agenda for the next meeting and, as far as he knew, he full Council would be present. Mayor Labadie ex ained that she did not want to see this item continued and asked if there were any questions the ouncil could ask tonight that may get them the needed clarification. Councilmember Se nschagrin explained that he would like to see it narrowed a bit and suggested building it around t ie Magistad situation that was referenced during the meeting. He stated that he was concernec about conflicts that may arise from neighbors that would no longer have recourse or transparency into this process, and would like to see them addressed within the language. Planning Director riffiths stated that he agreed with the statement made by City Attorney Shepherd earlier ir the meeting that a variance was not the proper tool to regulate nonconformities and explained that regardless of a variance decision by the City Council, the property owner has a right to that nonconformity in perpetuity as long as they continue to maintain it. He stated that nothing in this o dinance was taking away any process that residents have to discuss nonconformities. a noted that another way to look at this ordinance was that it was legalizing improvements tha meet City Code on a lot that may have some other small issues, as long as they meet all of th City's ordinance criteria. He explained that one of the reasons this was being brought forward was that under the variance process, the City opened itself up to possible litigation from pro erty owners for denying the variance application that meets all the other City Code requirement and was denied just because there was a nonconformity on the lot. Councilmember Gorham asked if they could remove Articles 4 and 5 on page four of the ordinance. I City Attorney She herd stated that he would recommend the Council keep the provision to allow staff to make deci ions related to ADA compliance, because they were best suited for those, and reminded the COL ncil that they can appeal if they are denied. He stated that if the Council was going to edit numl,er five, he would suggest taking out the last clause, but cautioned that this was essentially taken irectly from the State statute. He explained that if the Council was planning to edit this documen to take another vote, they first needed to make a motion to reconsider this item to put it before th Council. Councilmember qorham asked for examples of what City Attorney Shepherd had just described for item h. (4). fanning Director Griffiths stated that an example of that may be where a wheelchair ramp yvas required to provide for accessibility improvement. Councilmember public nuisance that public nuisE situation where 1 where an expan orham asked for an example for h (5), specifically the portion that referenced protects the public health, safety, and welfare. Planning Director Griffiths stated ices are defined in City Code and State statute and noted that it could be a sere is a hazardous structure. He stated that he could not think of an example ion was done to protect or abate a public nuisance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 2025 Page 7 of 12 City Attorney Shepherd noted that he also did not have an example off the top of his head, but reiterated that this language was directly derived from State law. He stated that every possible scenario cannot be predicted within the ordinance, nor would it be practical, but should provide staff and the Council the tools they need to deal with the scenarios as they arise. Mayor Labadie stated that the strongest 'tool' the city could have would be a State statute because it was not discretionary. Planning Director Griffiths stated that even if the city chose to remove this language from the ordinance, State law would still apply. Councilmember Maddy noted that it would just cost the property owner two thousand dollars extra. Councilmember Sanschagrin asked why the city would not just write it according to State statute instead of having its own code. City Attorney Shepherd clarified that this section states that a municipality may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities, reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances. He explained that the City did not have to have this provision, but it was allowed by State law. Mayor Labadie asked for a refresher on how the Council could proceed in this manner. Councilmember Maddy noted that if neither of the Councilmembers who voted in opposition to this were reconsidering, he suggested that they would not waste their time making a motion to reconsider it. Councilmember Gorham explained that he was mourning the general change in direction in State code in that you can make substantial improvements without any real attempt to eliminate non conformities, the way they have been able to in the past. Mayor Labadie noted that Planning Director Griffiths had explained that this was a trend that had been taking place over several decades. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it has been taking place since the elimination of amortization, which made it so the cities had no tools at their disposal to eliminate nonconformities and were allowed to continue in perpetuity, so that had not substantially changed. City Attorney Shepherd described the procedure that needed to be followed if the Council would like to reconsider this item. Gorham moved, Maddy seconded, to Reconsider Ordinance 620, Amending Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities. Motion passed 301 (Sanschagrin opposed). Gorham moved, Maddy seconded, to Approve Ordinance 620, Amending Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities. Motion passed 3-1 (Sanschagrin opposed). Maddy moved, Gorham seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 25-051, "A Resolution Approving the Publication of Ordinance 620 Regarding Zoning Regulations to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities." Motion passed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 25-051 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 620 REGARDING ZONING REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION FOR NONCONFORMITIES WHEREAS, at a duly called meeting on May 27, 2025, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. 620 entitled "Amending Shorewood City Code Chapter 1201 to Implement the Comprehensive Plan Direction for Nonconformities"; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a lengthy ordinance amending City Code Chapter 1201 (Zoning Regulations) to amend several sections of the City Code relative to nonconformities (including but not limited to definitions and performance standards) to provide for regulations for nonconforming properties consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's direction; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this summary is to inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance but to publish only a summary of the ordinance with the full ordinance being on file in the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours and available on the city's website. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. 620 clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish Ordinance No. 620 by title and summary, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, Subdivision 4. Such summary is to be substantially the same as the attached ordinance. 3. A full copy of the ordinance is available at Shorewood City Hall and on the city's website. Adopted by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 27th day of May, 2025. Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood City Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Nonconformities City Code Amendments Item Meeting Date: May 27, 2025 6B Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Reviewed by: Marc Nevinski, City Administrator Attachments: Planning Commission Memorandum Draft Ordinance 620 Draft Summary Ordinance for Publication APPLICANT: City of Shorewood LOCATION: City Wide Background Please see the attached Planning Commission memorandum for detailed background on this request. The proposed amendments to the City Code are being brought forward to implement the 2040 Comprehensive Plan's direction regarding nonconformities and to address inconsistencies between the City's ordinance and state and case law regarding nonconformities. The end result of the proposed amendments is additional flexibility for residents with challenging properties that still maintains an effective level of review by the City. It should also be noted that this is a tricky topic given how much legal precedent exists for nonconformities, and that the proposed amendments were drafted in consultation with the City Attorney. For this reason, some of the proposed updates may not be able to be substantially altered in order to maintain compliance with state statute. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments at their May 6, 2025, meeting. No public comments were received prior to or during the meeting. After review and discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City Council (5-yes, 0-no, 0-absent). As part of its recommendation, the Commission requested City staff work with the City Attorney to double- check some of the language in the proposed amendments. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed amendments in between the Planning Commission and City Council meeting and found that the language was appropriate. Financial Considerations The amendments were drafted in-house with review by the City Attorney. If the amendments are adopted, there will be costs associated with publication. Action Requested Motion to adopt Or inance 620 amending Shorewood City Code 1201 to implement the Comprehensive Pla direction for nonconformities. Motion to approve the Summary Ordinance for Publication. Approval of Ordintn e 620 requires a simple majority vote of the City Council. Approval of the Summary Ordice for Publication requires a 4/5 vote of the entire City Council. ow Item City of Shorewood Planning Commission Meeting Item 4D Title/Subject: Nonconformities City Code Amendments Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Attachments: Draft City Code Amendments APPLICANT: LOCATION: BACKGROUND City of Shorewood City Wide One of the policy goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was to establish appropriate regulations for development upon lawful nonconforming lots. More specifically, the idea was that nonconforming lots that are already developed should be able to be redeveloped without the need for a variance. Upon review of the City Code, City staff also found that it had not been substantially updated for several decades and did not account for recent changes to state law or legal precedent regarding nonconformities. Nonconforming lots are those properties which do not comply with the present zoning regulations for the area. Typically, nonconforming lots are identified in one of two categories: legally nonconforming or illegally nonconforming. Legal nonconformities are sometimes referred to as being "grandfathered in" and are those situations where a property was being used in a certain manner before zoning regulations were adopted that made it no longer in compliance. Illegal nonconformities are the exact opposite and are essentially violations of the City Code. The City will commonly review variance requests for nonconforming properties. Notice of tonight's public hearing was posted in the City's official newspapers, published on the City's website and at City Hall. No public comments were received prior to the publication of this report. REQUEST The proposed updates to the City Code incorporate the direction of the Comprehensive Plan and also modernize the City's regulations towards nonconformities. The proposed updates would essentially function as a repeal and replace of the entirety of the existing City Code. The result of the proposed amendments will be much greater flexibility for property owners to use their properties without needing to seek variances from the City. City staff would caution that the proposed amendments were drafted in consultation with the City attorney and have a lot of conversation with state law and legal precedent. For this reason, some of the proposed updates may not be able to be substantially altered in order to maintain compliance with state statute. The most substantial policy changes include the following: • Existing lots of record would no longer need a variance in order to be redeveloped, as long as all other City Code requirements are met. Page 2 • A parallel extens on/expansion of a pre-existing legal nonconforming structure may be permitted without a varian a as long as all other City Code requirements are met and the no con P not increased. ormity is FINDINGS/RECOMMEN ATION Staff recommends appr val of the proposed amendments implementing the direction of the Comprehensive Plan rel tive to nonconformities. The Planning Commission is request hearing on the propose amendments and make a recommendation to the CityCouncil. ed to hold a public ncil. i CITY OF SHOREWOOD 2 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA 4 5 ORDINANCE 620 6 7 AMENDING SHOREWOOD CITY CODE CHAPTER 1201 TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE 8 PLAN DIRECTION FOR NONCONFORMITIES 9 10 Section 1. City Code Section 1201.02 DEFINITIONS is hereby amended as follows. Text 11 proposed to be added is underlined; text proposed to be removed is-#r'`-kLQ � 12 ... 13 ILLEGAL NONCONFORMITY OR ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING USE. A land use, lot of record 14 structure, building, or sign that was unlawful when it was initiated, created or constructed and 15 which did not conform to the applicable conditions or provisions of the official controls for the 16 district in which the use, lot, structure, building or sign is located. 17 ... 18 LOT OF RECORD. Any lot which is one unit of a plat heretofore dulv approved and filed. or one 19 unit of an Auditor's Subdivision or a Registered Land Survey, or a parcel of land not so platted 20 subdivided or registered but for which a deed, Auditor's Subdivision or Registered Land Survey 21 has been recorded in the office of the Hennepin Countv Recorder prior to the effective date of 22 this Chapter. 23 ... 24 25 does Ret, 26 27 . 28 29 31 NONCONFORMITY. Any legal use, structure, or parcel of land already in existence recorded or 32 authorized before the adoption of official controls or amendments thereto that would not have 33 been permitted to become established under the terms of the official controls now written if 34 the official controls had been in effect prior to the date it was established, recorded or 35 authorized. 36 NONCONFORMING BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR USE. A building structure or use lawfully in 37 existence on the effective date of this chapter or any amendment thereto and not conforming 38 to the regulations for the district in which it is situated. 410 I ... 2 Sec__tion 2. City Code ection 1201.03, Subd. I. Nonconforming buildings, structures 3 hereby repealed and eplaced as follows. and uses is 4 5 Subd. 1. Nonconfor ing buildings, structures and uses. 6 a. Purpose and in ent. It is the purpose of this subdivision to provide for the regulation of 7 nonconformities and nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses and to specify those 8 requirements, circu stances and conditions under which nonconforming buildings, 9 and uses may be op rated and maintained. The zoning ordinance establishes separate districts, structures 10 each of which is an propriate area for the location of uses, which are allowed n to districts, 11 It is necessary and c nsistent with the establishment of these districts and the Co that district. 12 Plan that nonconfor ing buildings, structures and uses not be allowed to continue it Comprehensive 13 restriction. Further ore, it is the intent of this subsection that all non-conformingwithout 14 structures, or uses s all eventually be brought into conformity with the requirements buildings, 15 Shorewood City Cod . For the purposes of this subdivision, enlargement oaltera alteration of the 16 tion means: (1) Any incr se in a dimension, size, area, volume, or height. 17 (2) Any incr ase in the area of use. 18 (3) Any plac ment of a structure or building or part thereof where none ex' 19 fisted before. (4) Any imp ovement that would allow the land to be more intensely developed. 20 (5) Any mo of operations to a new location on the property. 21 (6) Any incr ase in intensity of use based on a review of the original nature 22 the purpose of the onconforming use, the hours of operation, traffic ,function ror 23 storage, signs, exte for lighting, types of operations, t ,parking, noise, exterior 2�4 area of operation, umber of employees, and other factors deemed relevant to tgoods or services he City. odor, 25 b e City. Continued no conforming use. A nonconforming use may be used and continued, 26 including through pair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement 27 including expansio , enlargement or intensification. ,but not, 28 c. Continued n nconforming building or structure. 29 (1) A nonconf rming structure or building damaged by fire or other peril to an extent of 30 50% or less of its a timated market value, as indicated in the records of the count 31 the time of damag , may be restored, reconstructed, or repaired, and can be used assessor at 32 provided the wor is completed within one year after the damage occurred. as before, 33 (2) Any nonc nforming structure or building damaged by fire or other peril to 34 greater than 50ounty % f its estimated market value, as indicated in the records of the an extent 35 assessor at the ti e of damage, shall not be restored or reconstructed and used as before 36 destruction unles a building permit to restore, reconstruct or repair the structure before such 37 has been applied r within 180 days after the damage occurred. In this case the City building ity may 2 1 impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created 2 impact on adjacent properties. A subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be 3 a conforming use or occupancy. 4 (3) The City may permit an expansion, as authorized in this subdivision, and impose upon 5 nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the 6 public health and safety. 7 d. Change of use. When any legal nonconforming use of land or structure has been changed 8 to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any nonconforming use or structure. 9 e. Reduction of nonconformity. A legally nonconformity may be changed to lessen the legally 10 nonconforming structure or use. Once a legally nonconforming structure or use has been 11 reduced, it shall not be altered thereafter to increase the nonconformity. 12 f. Discontinuance of nonconformity. If a nonconformity is discontinued or ceases for a period 13 of more than one year, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a 14 confirming use or occupancy. 15 g. Maintenance of nonconforming structures. Maintenance of a nonconforming structure, 16 building or sign will be permitted when it includes necessary nonstructural repairs and 17 incidental alternations which do not extend or intensify the nonconforming use of a structure, 18 building or sign. 19 h. Alterations and expansions. 20 (1) Alterations may be made to a continued nonconforming structure when such 21 alterations improve the livability and safety of such structure or building; provided, however, 22 that they do not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure and meet the minimum 23 height and setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. 24 (2) Where a single-family dwelling is a continued nonconforming structure, the addition 25 of a bedroom that otherwise meets the zoning ordinance regulations shall not be considered an 26 expansion of the use and is permitted. Such addition shall be limited to an increase in the living 27 area of no more than 20% of the existing main floor square footage. The addition of a deck, 28 garage, patio, fence, driveway, swimming pool or other development that improves the liability 29 or safety of the dwelling and otherwise meets the zoning ordinance regulations standards for 30 height and setbacks shall be permitted. 31 (3) A parallel extension/expansion of a pre-existing continued nonconforming structure, 32 or construction of an accessory structure, is permitted without a variance if all the following 33 criteria are met. 34 a. The nonconforming structure is a conforming use in the zoning district in which it is 35 located. 36 b. The extension/expansion does not encroach further into the already established 37 nonconforming setback. 3 I C. The h extens on/expansion meets all other applicable standards of the S 2 Code. Shorewood City 3 (4) Any modifi ation to an existing nonconforming residential buildingor structure 4 provide an accessibil y improvement shall be permitted upon the a Zoning to 5 Administrator. approval of the Zoning 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (5) Expansion f a continued nonconforming nonresidential use, structure, or building maybe permitted if can be demonstrated that the proposed expansion prevents or abates Public nuisance or p tects the public health, safety, and welfare. a (6) In cases w ere a structure is too close to a lot line, the city may require that the discrepancy be mad up by enlarging the opposite required yard space. (Example: where building is eight feet from a side lot line in a district in which a ten -foot setback is re uir a city may require a 1 -foot setback on the other side.) q ed, the i• Change in tena cy. A change in tenancy, ownership, or management will not affect t status of the nonco formity if the nonconformity continues in the same manner and of no e greater intensity as hat occurring prior to the change. J• Buildings unde construction and building permits granted prior to adoption or subsequent zoning regulations, ecome nonconforming, but twhich tfora building or building which wiermit has ll, under the granted prior to the effective date of the ordinance, may be completed n accordance lawfully approved plans pro ided: accordance with the (1) Const (2) Constr building permit. (3) Such st structure, building k. Nonconform, shoreland manage (1) Any exi principal use is ent Shorewood City Cc not meet the curre 32 (2) A non 33 the nonconformi 34 or if it has been p 35 ordinance from A :)n must commence within 180 days of issuance of the building permit. on continues to completion within one year of the issuance of the ture or building and use shall thereafter be a legal nonconforming use. q lots of record. Except for land in a floodplain management district, or gent district, the following shall apply to nonconforming lots of record: ng lot of record that is nonconforming and that is not improved with a ed to be developed with a principal use provided all requirements of the can be met. This provision shall apply even though the lot of record does applicable zoning requirements for lot area, lot depth, or lot width. f nforming lot of record is not entitled to be developed with a principal use if P lot of record has been in common ownership with an abutting parcel of land I of a larger parcel that became nonconforming after adoption of the ich this chapter is derived. 36 (3) If two ter, th r more contiguous lots in any district are under the same ow 37 individual lot doe not meet the lot area and lot width requirements of this cha and any Ater, the lot is 112 1 not considered a separate parcel or lot for the purpose of sale or development and the lot must 2 be combined with one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more lots, each meeting 3 the lot area and lot width requirements of this chapter to the extent possible. This requirement 4 shall not apply to the construction of a single-family dwelling on a nonconforming single lot of 5 record. 6 (4) In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, notwithstanding 7 limitations imposed by other provisions of this chapter, a single-family dwelling and customary 8 accessory buildings or structures, may be erected on any single lot of record. This provision 9 shall apply even though the lot fails to meet the lot area, lot width, or lot depth that are 10 generally applicable in the zoning district, provided that other requirements not involving lot 11 dimensions or lot area (such as setbacks) conform to the regulations for the zoning district in 12 which the lot is located. 13 I. Burden of proof. A person who wishes to take advantage of the rights granted to a 14 continued nonconformity has the burden or proving the status as a legal nonconformity by 15 clear and convincing evidence. 16 m. Nonconformities in shoreland areas. Nonconformities in shoreland areas shall be 17 regulated by M.S.A. § 462.357, subd. le(d) to (j), as amended. 18 n. Creation of nonconformities by public action. When lot area, width or setbacks are 19 reduced as a result of conveyance to a federal, state, or local government for a public purpose 20 and the remaining area is at least 50% of the otherwise applicable standards, then that lot and 21 any structures existing at the time of public action shall be deemed to be in compliance with 22 the minimum lot area, lot width, and setbacks of this chapter. 23 o. Appeal of estimated value of damage. 24 (1) If the City determines that more than 50% of the building or structure has been 25 destroyed, the property owner may, at their sole expense, hire an independent certified 26 appraiser with no interest in the property to determine the market value and present the 27 appraisal to the Zoning Administrator to be considered by the City Council. 28 (2) If the City Council maintains, after receiving the appraisal, that more than 50% of the 29 building or structure has been destroyed, the property owner shall have the right to appeal the 30 City's market value determination to district court. Such appeal must be brought within 30 days 31 of the City Council's determination. 32 Section 3: References. The City Clerk is authorized to correct any number references to the 33 requirements of this ordinance located elsewhere in the City Code that may have been altered 34 as a result of the amendments. 35 36 Section 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance 620 shall take effect upon publication in the City's 37 official newspaper. 38 5 .I ADOPTED BY THE Cl 2 May, 2025. 3 5 I COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 27th day of 6 7 ATTEST: 8 9 10 SANDIE THONE, C Y CLERK 11 JENNIFER LABADIE, MAYOR A CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 13 of 16 Chair Huskins stated that to him, that was more of a risk than using the term 'shall' and could require some form of mediation because what he thought may be completely different than what Commissioner Eggenberger may think. He reiterated that he felt the risk of a challenge to this may be higher with this approach. Planning Director Griffiths stated that if that was something that concerned the Commission, he could have a conversation with City Attorney Shepherd about those references. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if they said 'shall' in those instances, they could still run into the same problem because then they have to decide which meant there would still be ambiguity. Chair Huskins clarified that he was not arguing that they should insert the term 'shall' but explained that he had gotten hung up on the items that said 'may' and not 'shall' because the 'shall' statements were easier. Commissioner Longo stated that the use of the word 'may' could make a citizen think that they may not need to ask for a variance, which may mean that things would be built or modified. Chair Huskins stated that was why he had asked the generic question earlier about the meaning of the word 'may'. Planning Director Griffiths stated that all he could say was that this language came from City Attorney Shepherd's office. He noted that this was a very complicated ordinance that covers a lot of topics. He explained that between this meeting and the City Council meeting, he could have a follow-up conversation with City Attorney Shepherd to discuss some of the Commission's concerns. Chair Huskins stated that he would like to see that happen. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he did not think having that conversation would hurt anything. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he felt it was a good question. Chair Huskins asked about item 1201.03, Subd 1, item b related to continued nonconforming use and stated that this ended with 'but not, including expansion, enlargement, or intensification.' He noted that later in the document, he saw expansion being possible and asked if it might be better to say something like 'there are exceptions noted herein' or something similar. Planning Director Griffiths stated that this was the point where the language was confusing and explained that this section came directly from State law and was saying the word 'use'. He noted that there were two different standards, nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures. He reviewed examples of nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures. He noted that he also wished that the State law was clearer. Chair Huskins referenced item O. Appeal of estimated value of damage, on the last page and stated that it felt odd to him that this was pasted on at the end when earlier in the document that talked about the 50% and asked if there was a reason that this wasn't more contiguous with that portion of the ordinance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 14 of 16 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he was not sure there was a specific reason, but he could check with the City Attorney on how this had been organized. Commissioner Magistad asked if Planning Director Griffiths felt a homeowner that did not agree with a decision made by the City about the need for variance, could use the Commission or Council meeting as a forum to use this document to challenge that determination. Planning Director Griffiths stated that residents were always welcome to appeal to the Commission or Council if they disagreed with a determination that was made. Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 8:54 P.M. There being no one at the meeting, he closed the Public Hearing at 8:54 P.M. Commissioner Eggenberger moved, Commissioner Holker seconded, recommending approval of the City Initiated Nonconformities City Code Amendments for the City, with the direction that Planning Director Griffiths discuss some of their concerns with the City Attorney. Motion passed 5/0. Planning Director Griffiths stated that this would come before the Council on May 27, 2025. OTHER BUSINESS A. Monthly Training Topic — Findings of Fact Planning Director Griffiths explained that the City made decisions based on findings of fact and the record and shared a brief training about how findings of fact explain how and why the City reaches a decision. He noted that there was detailed information from the League of Minnesota Cities included in the packet for their reference. Commissioner Holker stated that she thought this information was great and put a bit of caution in her mind not to be swayed too much by personal opinions if it was not consistent with the facts. Chair Huskins gave the example of a situation where the Commission had heard the findings of fact, but upon a vote, there was not a unanimous vote, and asked if that exposed the City if there were non -unanimous recommendations. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it did not expose the City at all and would be the same as the Supreme Court having a 5-4 decision. He explained that what the court looks at is whether the City followed its process, such as opening and closing the public hearing, considering what people had to say, and developing findings of fact to support whatever the majority decision was. Chair Huskins noted that they ask the dissenting Commissioner to offer reasons for their vote and asked if that was important or if it was something that they should not be doing. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he felt for this group, it made sense to ask that question so it could be shared with the Council all of their thoughts on a project, but noted that it did not have a substantial impact. He noted that the Commission would never get in trouble by providing more information and would only get in trouble if it provided less information. City ofShorewood Planning Commission Meeting Item Title/Subject: Nonconformities City Code Amendments Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Attachments: Draft City Code Amendments APPLICANT LOCATION: BACKGROUND City of Shorewood City Wide One of the policy goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was to establish appropriate regulations for development upon lawful nonconforming lots. More specifically, the idea was that nonconforming lots that are already developed should be able to be redeveloped without the need for a variance. Upon review of the City Code, City staff also found that it had not been substantially updated for several decades and did not account for recent changes to state law or legal precedent regarding nonconformities. Nonconforming lots are those properties which do not comply with the present zoning regulations for the area. Typically, nonconforming lots are identified in one of two categories: legally nonconforming or illegally nonconforming. Legal nonconformities are sometimes referred to as being "grandfathered in" and are those situations where a property was being used in a certain manner before zoning regulations were adopted that made it no longer in compliance. Illegal nonconformities are the exact opposite and are essentially violations of the City Code. The City will commonly review variance requests for nonconforming properties. Notice of tonight's public hearing was posted in the City's official newspapers, published on the City's website and at City Hall. No public comments were received prior to the publication of this report. REQUEST The proposed updates to the City Code incorporate the direction of the Comprehensive Plan and also modernize the City's regulations towards nonconformities. The proposed updates would essentially function as a repeal and replace of the entirety of the existing City Code. The result of the proposed amendments will be much greater flexibility for property owners to use their properties without needing to seek variances from the City. City staff would caution that the proposed amendments were drafted in consultation with the City attorney and have a lot of conversation with state law and legal precedent. For this reason, some of the proposed updates may not be able to be substantially altered in order to maintain compliance with state statute. The most substantial policy changes include the following: • Existing lots of record would no longer need a variance in order to be redeveloped, as long as all other City Code requirements are met. Page 2 • A parallel extei without a varia not increased. ion/expansion of a pre-existing legal nonconforming structure may be permitted -e as long as all other City Code requirements are met and the nonconformity is FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends ap roval of the proposed amendments implementing the direction of the Comprehensive Plan r Iative to nonconformities. The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on the propo d amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council. 1201.02 DEFINITIONS. NONCONFORMING STRUCTU E. Any StFUGtUFe whiGh, on the effeGtive date of this Ghapter, dees not, even theugh lawfully established, GenfeFm to the appliGable not, even theugh lawfully established, Genform to the appliGable GGnditiens if the use were to he established under the guffid +nGe rof this r.hnnter. ILLEGAL NONCONFORMITY OR ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING USE. A land use, lot of record, structure, building, or sign that was unlawful when it was initiated, created or constructed and which did not conform to the applicable conditions or provisions of the official controls for the district in which the use, lot, structure, building or sign is located. LOT OF RECORD. Any lot which is one unit of a plat heretofore duly approved and filed, or one unit of an Auditor's Subdivision or a Registered Land Survey, or a parcel of land not so platted, subdivided or registered but for which a deed, Auditor's Subdivision or Registered Land Survey has been recorded in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder prior to the effective date of this Chapter. NONCONFORMING BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR USE. A building, structure, or use lawfully in existence on the effective date of this chapter or any amendment thereto and not conforming to the regulations for the district in which it is situated. NONCONFORMITY. Any legal use, structure, or parcel of land already in existence, recorded, or authorized before the adoption of official controls or amendments thereto that would not have been permitted to become established under the terms of the official controls now written, if the official controls had been in effect prior to the date it was established, recorded or authorized. 1201.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Subd. 1. Nonconforming buildings, structures and uses. --- --- - ---- - ---- -- ---- - - - --- 0111111111- - ---- --- --- - -- - - - - - .- -- -- ---- ---- - - --- - -- - - -- -- -- - -- - - - -------- --- -im --------------- =._ r- -- - -- .- - - - --- - - - - -- - -- - - i - - • . • i . • • - - • - - - - i character of - - adjacent - - - - (4) That any ir to expansion shaR take into consideration - - protection of light and - the adjacent property. (5) That in cases where a structure - too - - - to - Lot Line, the city may = i • _ that the discrepancy be rnade up by eniarging the opposite required yard space. (Example. where a building as eight feet from a side lot line On a disti ict an which a ten footsetback iequired, the city may require - 12 footsetback on the other side.) a. Pur.pose and intent. It is the purpose of this subdivision to provide for the regulation of 101•! • 11 •l! l•l •1 • !! /_ • • 1! .1� • •• structures c!! _ !l • •�- •!! !I l l•! !- •I • • !-1 •! l• separate districts, each of which us an appropriate area for the tocation of uses. which are allowed in t districts an-d-thLe Co not be allowed to continue without restriction, Furthermore. it is the intent of this subsection non -conforming buildings, structures, or -! - be brought into conformity with the requirements of the Shorewood City Code, For the purposes of • • l enlargement of - • l means: Any - • • • • Any ! the of before.(3) Any placement of a structure or buitding or part thereof where none existed (4) Any improvement that would [low the [and to be more intenset -dejve[Q Any moveof operations • a new tocation •1 the • •p• or 1- purpose Qf the nonconforming use, the hours of operation, •1 parking, noise, exterior•rage, signs, exterior1gtypesof operations, typesof goods or -► of to 1_ b. Continued nonconforming use. A nonconforming use may be used and continued, 1 � -�•.1 •1 -1 !•ll• • 1 - •1 located.the min-i-muin keight and setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are (2) Where a single-family dwelling is a continued nonconforming structure, the addition of a bedroom that otherwise meets the zoning ordinance reguiations shall not be considered .1 expansion of 1- use and is permitted. Suc1 addition 1• be limited to .1 increase in the living area of no more than 20% of the existing main floor square footage. The addition-af a deck. garage. r)atio—fen-ce. driveway. swimming pool or other develor)meni that 11• • 1- liability or -y of dwelling and otherwise meets the zoning ordinance regulati•l -l•. • for height • setbacks shatt be permitted, (3) A parallel extension/expansion of a pre-existing continued nonconforming structure, or construction of an accessory structure, is permitted without a variance if all the following criteria are met. a The nonconforming structure is a conforming use in the zoning district in which it is located. b The extension/expansion does not encroach further into the already established nonconforming setback. c The extension/expansion meets all other applicable standards of the Shorewood City Code. • !- .1 ! + 11! • -11-I I. !- !- 11 l-! _!•1 1- .!! • • 1- •1 1 r-11v I/ 1 • mil.•- •, • •I 1i • 11 l_ l•t " •"I I• 11• �- Permitted if it can be demonstrated that the proposed expansion prevents or abates a public nuisance or protects the public health, safety, and wetfare. (6) In cases where a structure is too close to a lot tine, the cit e that the status of 1' nonconformity if the nonconformity c•1 1 1 the same manner -1! of 1• greater intensity as that occurring prior to the change. Buildings underconstruction and building permits .n-• -prior to ado.ption • 1. Burden of.proof A person who wishes to take advantage of the rights granted to a continued nonconformity has the burden or proving the status as a legal nonconformityby clear • convincing evidence. 11. Nonconformities in shoreland areas. Nonconformities• - .ld areas shatt be regulated by 46•• • to amended. n. Creation of nonconformities b4public action, When tot area, width or setbacks are reduced as a result of • to a federat,or • government • pubtic that tot and any structurestime of public actionl• be deemed to be in compliance minimum lot• • setbacks of . • • A.p.peal of estimated value of damage, (1) If the City determines that more than 50% of the building or structure has been destroyed, the property owner may, at their sote expense, hire an independent certified ••ser with no interest in the property to determine themarket vatue and present the appraisat to the Zoning Administrator tQ • ' considered by • 1- building or been destroyed, the prQperty owner shalt_ • ••-at the City's market determination tQ district court.••- must be CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2025 Page 12 of 16 Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the only thing he would add was that the Commission had heard, in good faith, that the applicant would work with the neighboring property owners on making this development more acceptable to them. Chair Huskins asked if the Commission needed to formalize that point as part of their recommendation of approval. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it would be part of the record, and staff would draft the resolution that comes before the Council with language to that effect. Motion passed 5/0. Planning Director Griffiths stated that this item would come before the City Council on May 12, 2025. Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 8:29 P.M. and reconvened at 8:32 P.M. D. PUBLIC HEARING — NONCONFORMITIES CITY CODE AMENDMENTS Applicant: City Initiated Location: City-wide Planning Director Griffiths reviewed the proposed City-wide City Code amendments related to nonconformities and explained that the intent behind the proposed amendments was to make things simpler for residents, the Commission, and staff. He outlined the two most substantial policy changes that were being recommended and shared examples of when they would arise. Commissioner Magistad gave the example of the most recent item, where the gentleman's property had been rezoned, and asked if that created a nonconformity. He asked, for example, if that owner could build an addition on the house under these proposed rules. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he could build an addition on the house under these rules. Commissioner Longo stated that Planning Director Griffiths had mentioned certain things that are reasonable and would not need a variance, but asked who would decide what was considered reasonable because the change would no longer come before the Planning Commission. Planning Director Griffiths explained that with the way the language was written, there would only be very unique circumstances where variances would not be required, and explained that the ordinance would be determining what would be considered reasonable, and City staff would administer the ordinance. Chair Huskins asked for a definition of 'may be' and noted that it may be, in part, in addition to the question asked by Commissioner Longo, and explained that they could use an example. Planning Director Griffiths explained that this was where the legal precedent came in and explained that the way the State law was written was very wishy-washy. He stated that much of the language that City Attorney Shepherd had put into the ordinance was also not very rigid to allow for the flexibility of interpretation. He stated that in the situation mentioned by Chair Huskins, the term 'may' meant that if you can demonstrate this certain thing, the City may grant it. He explained that by using the term 'may' instead of 'shall', the City was trying to avoid potential litigation. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC HEARING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER I do solemly swear that the notice, as per the proof, was published in the edition of the Laker Pioneer with the known office of issue being located in the county of: CARVER with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for 1 successive week(s); the first insertion being on 04/26/2025 and the last insertion being on 04/26/2025. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. §580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in §580.033, subd. 1, clause (1) or (2). If the newspaper's known office of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in the latter county. By A,�� &n& �_ signate gent Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me on 04/26/2025 Notary Public E_erson Frcpires Jan. 31, 2029 Rate Information: (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota, on Tuesday, May 6'", at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the hearing is consider zoning ordinance amendments relative to nonconformities in Shorewood, Minnesota. Legal description of the property is on file at City Hall. For more information on this application please visit httns://shorewoodmn. gov/PrivateDevelooments. Verbal and written comments will be considered at that time. Anyone having questions may contact the Planning Department at 952-960-7900 or email planning shorewoodmn.cov. City of Shorewood Jake Griffiths Planning Director Published in the Laker Pioneer ApH126, 2025 1464211 Ad ID 1464211 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC HEARING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I do solemly swear that the notice, as per the proof, was published in the edition of the SS Mtka Excelsior Eden Prairie with the known office of issue being located in the county of. HENNEPIN with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for 1 successive week(s); the first insertion being on 04/24/2025 and the last insertion being on 04/24/2025. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. §580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in §580.033, subd. 1, clause (1) or (2). If the newspaper's known office of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial po of the newspaper's circ a 'on is in a lat r county. Y' Designated Age Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me on 04/24/2025 Notary Public Darlene Marie MacPherson Notary Public Minnesota My Commission Fires Jan. 31, 2029 Rate Information: (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota, on Tuesday, May 61, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the hearing is consider zoning ordinance amendments relative to nonconformities in Shorewood, Minnesota. Legal description of the property is on file at City Hall. For more information on this application please visit ft s://shorewoodmn. gov/PrivateDevelopments. Verbal and written comments will be considered at that time. Anyone having questions may contact the Planning Department at 952-960-7900 or email planning® shorewoodmn.gov. City of Shorewood Jake Griffiths Planning Director Published in the Sun Sailor April 24, 2025 1464210 Ad ID 1464210 FA l e-A C�S�CANNEI[�� EAST CENTRAL MINNESOTA -Public Notice Ad Proof - This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below. Please proof read carefully. If changes are needed, please contact us prior to deadline at Cambridge (763) 691-6000 or email at publicnotice@apgecm.com Publications: SS Mtka Excelsior Eden Prairie Date: 04/17/25 Account #: 412508 Customer: CITY OF SHOREWOOD Address: 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD Telephone: (952) 960-7904 Fax: (952) 474-0128 Ad ID: 1464210 Copy Llne: May 6 PH Zoning Ordinance Amen PO Number: Start: 04/24/25 Stop: 04/24/2025 Total Cost: $56.25 # of Lines: 37 Total Depth: 4.139 # of Inserts: 1 Ad Class: 150 Phone # (763) 691-6000 Email: publicnotice@apgecm.com Rep No: SE700 Contract -Gross Ad Proof Not Actual Size CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota, on Tuesday, May 61h, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the hearing is consider zoning ordinance amendments relative to nonconformities in Shorewood, Minnesota. Legal description of the property is on file at City Hall. For more information on this application please visit httos://shorewoodmm g ov/Private Deve I opm en ts. Verbal and written comments will be considered at that time. Anyone having questions may contact the Planning Department at 952-960-7900 or email olannino@ shorewoodmn.aov. City of Shorewood Jake Griffiths Planning Director Published in the Sun Sailor April 24, 2025 1464210 D C`_11SCANNEO F�'& J EAST CENTRAL MINNESOTA -Public Notice Ad Proof - This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below. Please proof read carefully. If changes are needed, please contact us prior to deadline at Cambridge (763) 691-6000 or email at publicnotice@apgecm.com Date: 04/17/25 Account #: 412508 Customer: CITY OF SHOREWOOD Address: 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD Telephone: (952) 960-7904 Fax: (952) 474-0128 Ad ID: 1464211 Copy Llne: May 6 PH Zoning Ordinance Amen PO Number Start: 04/26/25 Stop: 04/26/2025 Total Cost: $38.70 # of Lines: 37 Total Depth: 4.139 # of Inserts: 1 Ad Class: 150 Phone # (763) 691-6000 Email: publicnotice@apgecm.com Rep No: SW700 Contract -Gross ons: Laker Pioneer Ad Proof Not Actual Size CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota, on Tuesday, May 61, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the hearing is consider zoning ordinance amendments relative to nonconformities in Shorewood, Minnesota. Legal description of the property is on file at City Hall. For more information on this application please visit httos7Hshorewoodmn. 9 ov/PrivateDeve lopments. Verbal and written comments will be considered at that time. Anyone having questions may contact the Planning Department at 952-960-7900 or email I nnin shorewoodmn.gQ. City of Shorewood Jake Griffiths Planning Director Published in the Laker Pioneer April 26, 2025 1464211 Q l! 1 7 Z Q U U) As part of the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, amendments to the City Code relative to nonconformities are needed. The Comprehensive Plan included direction that nonconforming lots that are already developed should be able to be redeveloped without variances. The proposed amendments incorporate this direction, as well as provide other technical updates to the City Code that correct issues of clarity, consistency, or relevance. Overall, the proposed amendments will provide greater flexibility to residents for use of their property without the need to obtain a variance. LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING SCANNED CITY OF SHOREWOOD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota, on Tuesday, May 61h, at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the hearing is consider zoning ordinance amendments relative to nonconformities in Shorewood, Minnesota. Legal description of the property is on file at City Hall. For more information on this application please visit https://shorewoodmn.gov/PrivateDevelopments. Verbal and written comments will be considered at that time. Anyone having questions may contact the Planning Department at 952-960-7900 or email planning_gshorewoodmn. og_v. City of Shorewood Jake Griffiths Planning Director To be published April 2411 (Sailor). April 26th (Laker Pioneer). 1201.02 DEFINITIONS. A..ONCONFORrA41NG STRUCTURE.Any ctnrn4rrro which on the offonfiye Ante of this any ctrr rntr rro IC)Gated on a nonnonforminn Int NONCONFORMING USE any use which on the effentiye mote of this nhanter, moos nvr�v�vi �'��-ci �-u�c-v��rcn�rrtrr�, crrcccrvctru'rc-o-rcrrra crraprccr-cro�.� not, even theugh lawfully established, Gonforrn to the appliGable Gendutions Of the use were to he established under the nr ridanne of this nhonter ILLEGAL NONCONFORMITY OR ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING USE. A land use, lot of record, structure, building, or sign that was unlawful when it was initiated, created or constructed and which did not conform to the applicable conditions or provisions of the official controls for the district in which the use, lot, structure, building or sign is located. LOT OF RECORD. Any lot which is one unit of a plat heretofore duly approved and filed, or one unit of an Auditor's Subdivision or a Registered Land Survey, or a parcel of land not so platted, subdivided or registered but for which a deed, Auditor's Subdivision or Registered Land Survey has been recorded in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder prior to the effective date of this Chapter. NONCONFORMING BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR USE. A building, structure, or use lawfully in existence on the effective date of this chapter or any amendment thereto and not conforming to the regulations for the district in which it is situated. NONCONFORMITY. Any legal use, structure, or parcel of land already in existence, recorded, or authorized before the adoption of official controls or amendments thereto that would not have been permitted to become established under the terms of the official controls now written, if the official controls had been in effect prior to the date it was established. recorded or authorized. 1201.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Subd. 1. Nonconformingbui(dings, structures and uses. -- ; -;-- -- -;. ----- - -- - -- - -;-; ;-- .-;- - -- -- - ------ - --- -- --- - -- - -- - - --- - -- ------ - --- - -- - - -- --- -- -- - - --- --Fftmm -- - --111111- ---- -- - - ---- JIM LMI ---------- - - - - - - - ---- - ---ml- --- -- - - ------ - -- -- - - - - - - - -- -- -- --- -- -- -- - -- - - - •• --MINN-` - - - -- -- - --- mm - --'- ---- -- - - -- ----- -- - ----- - - ----- ---- ----- -- --- - -- ------ - -- -- - - -- --- -- --- -- - -- --- --- M,Ww --------- - -- -- -- - - - --- - . . - . 1 - . . - .. - ■ - . - . - . - . . - Am WIWAPTIT - - mu-N No al mu - ------- --- -- -- -- WIN -- - - -- - - -. -.- .. - -. 1111 - - - . --- - -- -- - -- - - -- --- --------- -- - - -- --- - ------ - --- - ----- sam - -- -- - -- - ---- -- - --- -- - - - - ---- -- - -- -- - ---- - emp -- - - -- -- - --- 41- - --- --- -- - - - -- -- --- -- - -- -- ------ - r. 9AW -- - --- -- --- -- - - -- - - -iltmillllllllllllllll11111111--ICM&wt=dg ---- -- - ----Lwft-IWWALWA-- -- - --- - -- - - -MMOMMIAAMI&MEM -- --- --- 01 - - RW-W- leave--- -- - - --- -- 11-- - - --- -- --- - - -- -- -- -- - - --- -- -- ----------- -- - ---- - - - - -- - - - ------ - -- -- -- - -- ------ - -- - --- -- --- - - - --- -- - ------III - - --- -- -- - ---- -- ---- -- -- ---- -- ------ - -- --- AILM ----- 0-- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- ----- - -- ------ - -- - -- - - - - - - - ---- - -- - --- -- -- - -- - -- ---- -- -- - -- -- 11.9411111111111---- (3) That the granting of theexpaii-io.. shali not adversely affect the aestheties o eharacter of the adjaeent property. (4) That any expansion shaR take into eonsideration the protection of light and air to the adjaeent property. (5) That an eases where a struettire is too eiose to a lot iine, the eity may require that, the discrepancy be made tip by enlarging the opposite required yard spaee. (Exampie: where a buRding is eight feet from a side lot Hne in a distfiet in which a ten foot Setbaek required, the eity may require a 12 foot setbaek on the other side.) a Purpose and intent It is the purpose of this subdivision to provide for the regulation of nonconformities and nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming buildings structures and uses may be operated and maintained The zoning ordinance establishes separate districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the location of uses, which are allowed in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts and the Comprehensive Plan that nonconforming buildings, structures and uses not be allowed to continue without restriction. Furthermore, t is the intent of this subsection that all non -conforming buildings, structures, or uses shall eventually be brought into conformity with the requirements of the Shorewood City Code For the purposes of this subdivision, enlargement of alteration means: (1) Any increase in a dimension, size, area, volume, or height. (2) Any increase in the area of use. (3) Any placement of a structure or building or part thereof where none existed before. (44. Any improvement that would allow the land to be more intensely developed. (5) Any move of operations to a new location on the property. (6) Any increase in intensity of use based on a review of the original nature, function or the purpose of the nonconforming use, the hours of operation, traffic, parking, noise, exterior storage signs, exterior lighting, types of operations, types of goods or services offered, odor, area of operation, number of employees, and other factors deemed relevant to the City. b. Continued nonconforming use. A nonconforming use may be used and continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not, including expansion, enlargement or intensification. C. Continued nonconforming building or structure. (1) A nonconforming structure or building damaged by fire or other peril to an extent of 50% or less of its estimated market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage may be restored reconstructed, or repaired, and can be used as before, provided the work is completed within one year after the damage occurred. (2) Any nonconforming structure or building damaged by fire or other peril to an extent greater than 50% of its estimated market value, as indicated in the records of the county assessor at the time of damage shall not be restored or reconstructed and used as before such destruction unless a building permit to restore reconstruct or repair the structure or building has been applied for within 180 days after the damage occurred. In this case. the City may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent properties A subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. (3) The City may permit an expansion, as authorized in this subdivision, and impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to rotect the public health and safetv. d Change of use When any legal nonconforming use of land or structure has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any nonconforming use or structure. e Reduction of nonconformity. A legally nonconformity may be changed to lessen the legally nonconforming structure or use Once a legally nonconforming structure or use has been reduced, it shall not be altered thereafter to increase the nonconformity. f Discontinuance of nonconformity. If a nonconformity is discontinued or ceases for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a confirming use or occupancy. g Maintenance of nonconforming structures Maintenance of a nonconforming structure building or sign will be permitted when it includes necessary nonstructural repairs and incidental alternations which do not extend or intensify the nonconforming use of a structure, building or sign. h. Alterations and expansions. (1) Alterations may be made to a continued nonconforming structure when such alterations improve the livability and safety of such structure or building; provided, however, that they do not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure and meet the minimum height and setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. (2) Where a single-family dwelling is a continued nonconforming structure, the addition of a bedroom that otherwise meets the zoning ordinance regulations shall not be considered an expansion of the use and is permitted Such addition shall be limited to an increase in the living area of no more than 20% of the existing main floor square footage. The addition of a deck, garage patio, fence, driveway, swimming pool or other development that improves the liability or safety of the dwelling and otherwise meets the zoning ordinance regulations standards for height and setbacks shall be permitted. (3) A parallel extension/expansion of a_pre-existing continued nonconforming structure, or construction of an accessory structure, is permitted without a variance if all the following criteria are met. a The nonconforming structure is a conforming use in the zoning district in which it is located. b The extension/expansion does not encroach further into the already established nonconforming setback. c The extension/expansion meets all other applicable standards of the Shorewood City Code. U Any modification to an existing nonconforming residential building or structure to provide an accessibility improvement shall be permitted upon the approval of the Zoning Administrator. (5) Expansion of a continued nonconforming nonresidential use, structure, or building may be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the proposed expansion prevents or abates a public nuisance or protects the public health, safety, and welfare. (6) 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.) i Change in tenanc„y. A change in tenancy, ownership, or management will not affect the status of the nonconformity if the nonconformity continues in the same manner and of no greater intensity as that occurring prior to the change. i Buildings under construction and building permits granted prior to adoption or subsequent amendment of zoning regulations Any proposed structure or building which will, under the zoning regulations, become nonconforming, but which for a building permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of the ordinance may be completed in accordance with the approved plans provided: (1) Construction must commence within 180 days of issuance of the building permit. (2) Construction continues to completion within one year of the issuance of the building permit. (3) Such structure or building and use shall thereafter be a legal nonconforming structure, building or use. k. Nonconforming lots of record. Except _for land in a floodalain management district, or shoreland management district, the followin shall apply to nonconformin lots of record: (1) Any existing lot of record that is nonconforming and that is not improved with a principal use is entitled to be developed with a principal use provided all requirements of the Shorewood City Code can be met This provision shall apply even though the lot of record does not meet the current applicable zoning requirements for lot area lot depth, or lot width. (2) A nonconforming lot of record is not entitled to be developed with a principal use if the nonconforming lot of record has been in common ownership with an abutting parcel of land or if it has been part of a larger parcel that became nonconforming after adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. (3) If two or more contiguous lots in any district are under the same ownership and any individual lot does not meet the lot area and lot width requirements of this chapter, the Lot is not considered a separate parcel or lot for the purpose of sale or development and the lot must be combined with one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more lots, each meeting the lot area and lot width requirements of this chapter to the extent possible. This requirement shall not apply to the construction of a single-family dwelling on a nonconforming single lot of record. (4) In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted notwithstanding Limitations imposed by other provisions of this chapter, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildings or structures, may be erected on any single lot of record. This provision shall apply even though the lot fails to meet the lot area lot width, or to depth that are generally applicable in the zoning district, Lprovided that other requirements not involving lot dimensions or lot area (such as setbacks) conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which the lot is located. L. Burden of proof. A person who wishes to take advantage of the rights granted to a continued nonconformity has the burden or proving the status as a legal nonconformity by clear and convincing evidence. M. Nonconformities in shoreland areas Nonconformities in shoreland areas shall be regulate"b M.S.A. § 462 357, subd. le(d)to (j), as amended. n Creation of nonconformities b-ypublic action When lot area, width or setbacks are reduced as a result of conveyance to a federal, state, or local government for a public purpose and the remaining area is at least 50% of the otherwise applicable standards, then that lot and any structures existing at the time of public action shall be deemed to be in compliance with the minimum lot area, lot width and setbacks of this chapter. o. Appeal of estimated value of damage. U If the City determines that more than 50% of the building or structure has been destroyed, the property owner may, at their sole expense, hire an independent certified appraiser with no interest in the property to determine the market value and present the appraisal to the Zoning Administrator to be considered by the City Council. (2) If the City Council maintains, after receiving the appraisal, that more than 50% of the building or structure has been destroyed, the property owner shall have the right to appeal the City's market value determination to district courtSuch appeal must be brought within 30 days of the City Council's determination.