HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. Reduced Front Yard Setbacks for Open Single Story Front Porches Amendment, Case 04-66-TA•aanleal gaaod luoil a epnloul
spoogjogg6ieu esagl10 goee ui s6ulllemp agj jo uorpod lueolliu6is y spoogaogg6lau aluiod
auAeosls pue `plallwool8 `sll!H Aaluno(] `smopeaw `suolloalla�l °Joowaan3 ag} u lunowaso�l
lnogbnoagl punol eq ueO puaal slgl 10 aouapin3 •sjaAnq ewoq aol ainleal iep jg6nos
e sagoaod luoil leuolllpeil spew aneg spuaJj 19�JeW 6ulsnog lueoaa `suoseaa asagl joj
•u6lsap A;lunwwoo Alpualal ueljlseped ajow e
eleaao pue `poogaoggBlau agl to aanloallgoae agl of ppe soomi aouequa se `uolllppe
ul •sluawele agl woal uolloeloid paaanoo qj!m slsanb pue slueplsaa glop apinoid sagojod
luoal `anlloadsaad leuollounl a woj= •sagoaod luoil ,lo uolllppe eql g6nojgl lunoweso�j
ul soinloruls aaplo agl ul luawlsanulaJ ebeinooue of sl luewpuewe slgl 1 lualul 9 4-L
•slolaisip 6uluoz 6�I pUe V'6 j eql gloq of Aldde eoueulpjo eql legs
papuawwooaa uolsslwwoo eql - lopis!p `d6b agl ul uolldaoxe agl llwjad Aluo of sem lesodo.id
PIP' 941 u011epu9wwooaa uoisslwwo(] 6uluueld agl woal salaen uollepuawwooaa llels aql
,, - 6L66 aaolaq jo uo papeld spoogjogg6lau
Aliwel- 916uls 6ullslxe 10 as ;oeaego agl anaasaad o si goigm lo!jls! (] 'd 6 - 2j agl 10 jua pue
esod.ind agl gl!M lualslsuoo luawpuawe slgl spug llels '1991 (OZ) Aluaml to �oeglas paeA luoil
wnwiulw a ulelulew Aagl papinoid `Noeglas pjeA luoil fool oe paalnbaa agl olu! leaf (o 6) uel
of do 10 aouelsip a gpeoaoue Aew goigm gojod tiols albuls uado ue aneg 01096 6 `6 tienuep
of ao!jd lllnq sewog Allwel- 916uls molle of aoueulpio 6uluoz agl buipuawe sesodoad gejS
ldSOdOSd
: NO113V
•1991 OZ l uaN4 t o joeglas pjeA l uoi l wn a Ulelulew A94 a pinoa
`�oeglas pjeA luoil fool -OE paalnbei agl olul 19,9106 of do goeoaoue A ew goigm goaod luoil
Aaols albuls uado a aneg 0 1 096 6 `6 Aienuep of aolad 1pq sawoq Alpel 916uls bu `q
aoueulpio 6uluoz lunoweso�l 9 41 1 Z uolloas 6ulpu9we aoueulpJo ue ;dope 01 uo1
:NO113V a34N3WWOa3M
t ooz `tl 40MIN
to a1ol�`d ssaad aaauold `s,06 pue s,086 6
8 a3A021ddb�
9g1 ul llln8 awoH to sAanans `salnu!W od
t pUe t ` llea(] :S1.N3WHOV.L.LV
Jauueld AID luelslssy
'ON aN3J
'd'O'I•d `Nepull uoser :As a3MVd3Ud
ssaulsn8 nneN
sagoaod
luoaj AjoIS albuiS uado aoj sNoegleS
�NOIlO3S b�aN3Jb�
pie,k luoa paonpe�j VI 3SVa :W311 VaN30)V
1700Z , q6 aagwanoN :ale(] ou!leaW I!ouno(] nllO
NOII3V NO:I ANvwwns 3AIino3X3
1Nnoms021 :jO Alla
1 a
Z
-sNoeglas peonpaa molle of uols!noad dfld a lnoyl!m uoIs!n!pgns of eoueulpio
s!yl to uolleolldde 9 411!wil llels 1e416uilsa66ns Aq wal! s!ql to uo!ssnos!p j!ayl pepnlouoo
Aayl -Noeglas paeA luoij 0E pajlnbaa 94l olu! laal (p L) ual of do sayoeojoue yoigm sayoaod
uado Aaols 916uls a aney of slol.als!Q y L -�j pu L -�j 9 u! sawoy Al!wel- alBu!s 6ulnnolle
luauwpuawe 1x91 a anoidde 1punoo Al!o a4l papuawwooaa Aisnow!ueun uoiss!wwoo
ayl `llnsai a sy. •suolJoalla�j pue `pia!lwoo18 `aoowaan3 u! se `su6lsap awoy J1a4l u1 aanleel
slyl papnlou! ApeaJle l,uaney 1e41 slo!alslQ yL -�j pue L -�l 94 u! sawoy Al!wel 9l6uis Ile o
elgel!ene aq pinoys goaod luoij a 6u!ppe to uolldo 9y11!91 ing lopjsla yL -�j 9y1 0l l uawpuaw e
1x91 ayl 6uipwll aol uo!leueldxe s,llels poolsaapun uo!sslwwoo 941 'lolalSIG yL -� ay o f
uollelpil 941 pue lesodoid 941 passnoslp uo!sslwwoo ay} `Auow!lsal ollgnd ou 6u!jeay wally
't00Z `9Z jagoloo uo lesodoid slyl M;9lA9a 016u!aeay o!ignd a play uo!ss!wwoO buluueld 9 41
M31A3N NOISSIWWOO JNINNV Id
'pa01sep Alpualal uepisaped aaow a pue sNlennap!s aney of pual spoogaogy6!au
esayl qunoweso�j to suo!laod aaplo a4l aol pal!ns aaow Alleaaua6 9ie sayoaod luoij
Jeyl san91Iaq }gels `Alleul3 - luewyoeoic)ue �oeglas aol peau ayj lnoyl!m wool gbnou9 ueyj
aaow aq pinom ,0z yojod luoij a ppe of ysim jeumoawoy ayl pinoys - asnoy 941 u01jen9la
Iual 941 pue 96eae6 ayl to uo!lenala luoal 941 ueeNeq 1991 OZ se yonw se saneal u61sep
s!yl seseo lsow ul - pu!yaq 1pq asnoy 941 qpm u6!sep paeNuol a6eJe6 a aney 9LUeal aw!l
S141 6upnp ll!nq sawoy a4l to lsoW - (sAanans payoelle aas) Noeglas paa!nbaa 941 bu!yoeoaoue
lno4l!M uo!1!ppe goaod luoij a alepoww000e of alge aq pinoys s,066 L Alaea pue s,0861:
9yl ui ll!nq awoy leo!dAl aylto u6!sap ayl `pj!yl - sayoaod luoij o6einoou9 of sNoeglas aonpai
apnlou, s,Qnd le!luap!saJ luaoaj 94l to Aew `loel u1 - sregles paalnbaa 94l ulyl!m pue u6!sap
aanionils ayl jo lied se goaod luoij a apnlou! of Al!unlaoddo 941 peu Apeeile spoogaogy6!au
J9mGu leyl slaal llels `puooaS - lo!jlslQ VL-?l ayl u! paleool u! Nools 6u!snoy j9plo s,Al 9 41
to Al!Jofew lsen 941 `lo!Jls!a L - a ayl u!yl!M sawoy aaplo auaos awe aaayl al!yM - lunowaso�j
to suolliod iaplo eyl u! luawls9nu19a 96einooua of sem luawpuawe ayl to lualul eq} `
*suoseaJ leJanas aol lolalsIG y -�l ayl o l uawyoeoaoue goaod l uoal 9 popw!i uo!sslwwoo
941 of lesodoid s j:elS - lopjslQ `dL 941 u! Aluo lnq Noeglas paeA luoij 0£ paalnbei
ayl olul 1 9910 L yoeoioue of sayoaod l uoij uado Aaols 916 molle pinom le4l luewpuawe
ue 4l!M t00Z `9Z aagoloo uo uolssiwwOO 6u!uueld ayl of Noeq luem llels `sa!l!unwwoo
aaylo ui sayoaod aol spiepuels 941 se 119M se sloPlSIO yL - �:l pue L -�l 9 41 6u!yoaeesaa aa:.y
. slolalslQ
yL - a pue L -�l ayl ui joeglas paeA luoij 0£ paa!nbei ayl olu! 1991 oL yoeoaoua of sayoaod
uado Ajols 916uis 6u!molle luawpuawe lxal 6u!uoz a aaedaid of gels poloanp uolss!wwoo
941 `eoueulpio siyl aapun papnioui aq pinoys sa!padoid yoigm 6uipiebei uolssnoslp awos
jally 'Noeglas pjeA luoij p£ paa!nbai ayl olu! pal 0L gbeoaoue o sayoaod l ual uado Aaols
al6uls 6ulmolle luawpuawe lx9l 6u!uoz a aaedaid of llels 6ulloaa!p ui pelsaaalu! ejam Aayl
1! uo!ss!wwoo ayl paNse gels `6ul199w uolss!wwoO 6uiuueld t00Z `tZ lsnbny agl 6uljnd
- suo!l!ppe goaod luoil ebeanooue of sopoo alayl
papuawe aney Ved s!no - IS pue `pl9!lyo!1 `all!nsuan8 `uesseyueyo bulpnloui sa!1!unwwoo
uel!lodoilew aaylo `uo!1!ppe ul - op muo!leu pue alels yloq puaal s!yl bulw4uoo sa!pnls
P UB salol:Pe l punol ybaeas lauaalui lueow y - lunowasoa of anb!un l ou si puaal slyl
T
ANALYSIS
Currently, Section 7.2.0 of the zoning ordinance allows uncovered deck, porches and
balconies to encroach into required setbacks (see table below). Under these existing rules
residents may add an uncovered deck or porch to their home and encroach up to 15 -feet into
the 30 -foot front yard setback. Staff recommends amending this section to permit covered
porches to encroach 10 -feet into the required 30 -foot front yard setback. The existing
standards are illustrated in the table below.
Permitted
Encroachments for Uncovered Deck, Porches, & Balconies
Yard Side
Permitted Encroachments
into Required Setbacks
Less Than 2 Feet Deck Height)
Greater Than 2 Feet Deck Height
Front
15 feet
5 feet
Street Side
15 feet
5 feet
Rear
15 feet
15 feet
Side
5 feet
5 feet
Staff wishes to emphasize that at no time would a front porch be permitted within 20 feet of
the front property line. Section 6.6.F.4.c allows for an average setback under certain
circumstances. In the R -1A District, an average front yard setback could be used if 40
percent or more of the lots on the same side of the block where the structure is located are
developed with front yard setbacks of less than the required 30 -feet. However, at no time
could the average be less than 20 -feet.
In addition, under the proposed amendment, the porch could not be enclosed or screened.
They may have railings, dividers, spindles or lattice no higher than 3.5 feet from the base with
no more than 50 percent opacity. Staff acknowledges this restriction may limit use of the
porches. However, staff feels that an enclosed structure with the reduced setback would
create a more -dense neighborhood environment than intended by the ordinance and /or
encourage the porch addition to become additional living space.
It is staffs understanding that the original purpose for uncovered encroachment was to allow
handicapped access through, ramps which could encroach into the required 30 -f6ot front yard
setback. According to the Building Official, single family homes are not required to meet the
disability access standards in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, by
permitting a home owner to add a front porch that encroaches into the required 30 -foot front
yard setback, the City is not inherently permitting further encroachments by accessibility
ramps. However, staff believes that the City would make an effort to accommodate
accessibility ramps should one be needed.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Staffs recommendation differs from the Planning Commission recommendation in that we are
recommending a date for allowance of the porch setback exception. Structures constructed
prior to January 1, 1980, in either the R1 or R1 district would be allowed the porch
exception. Homes constructed after that time would be held to the current ordinance front
yard setback standards, without allowing any variation for covered porches. This limits the
availability of the amendment to properties where reinvestment will occur versus new
3
u61sep Apunwwoo Alpuaul
ueuiseped ajow a aleem pue pooyaogy6ieu ayj jo aanjoep oie ayj of ppe `sluewele ayj woaj
uopajoad apinad yoiynn sayoaod juoil jo juewdoIanap ayj abeinooue pinonn juawpuawe
siyl `Alluepodwi aaoW ,*6L61, aaoIaq jo uo palled spooyaogy6ieu Alpel- albuis 6upixe
10 aajoeaeyo ayl anuasajd oj„ jopp(] H6 - �j ayj jo juajui pue asodind ayj ylinn }ualsisuoo
luawpueWe siyj spun. gels •Apoedo juawed 05 ueyj aaow ou q inn aseq 941 W04 19,91
Te ue4I aay6iy ou eoigel ao selpuids `sJapinip `s6uiliea aney Aew }nq peumos jo posoloue
aq jou pinoo eaje yoaod ayl •1991(OZ) A4uen4 }o Moeglas pjeA }uoij wnwiuiw a weluiew
A941 papinoid `�oegjas paeA luoij look. 0E paiinbaa ayj ojui 1991(o L) ual o} do ,jo eouelsip e
yoeaoua Aew yoiynn yoaod Aao }s 916uis uado ue aney. 0 1096 1, '1, Aaenuer of aoiad 3pq sawoy
Alpej- a16uis buinnolle juawpuawe aoueuipao soap payoelle ayj jo uoildope spuawwooaa -4elS
�odaa siyj jo uoijoeS punoibNoe8 ayj ui anoge palsil suoseaa
ay} of anp l,b peuoz Alluaaano saipadoad lie of Aldde jou pinoys Juawpuawe ay} s9na11eq
.4ejS •uoileiJen Noeglas Aue Inopm yoaod a palepoww000e aney pinoo jeyj saipadoid
i
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. B-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7.2 OF THE
ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE B
Supplementary Regulations
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 . Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of
Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended.
SECTION 2. Rosemount Zoning Ordinance B, Section 7.2.C.1.d is hereby
amended by adding the following:
3. Covered deck or porches may encroach into the required front yard
setback as follows:
Single- family homes built prior to January 1 1980 may have an open
single story porch that encroaches into the required front yard a distance
not exceeding ten (10) feet provided thev maintain a minimum front yard
setback of twenty (20) feet. The ten (10) shall include the roofline
support columns, and steps The porch area may have a railing that
conforms to the Minnesota State Buildinq Code standards but shall not
exceed 3.5 feet in height. The porch area shall not be enclosed nor
_screened with mesh glass or other similar material but may have
dividers, spindles or lattice no higher than 3.5 feet from the base of the
porch with no more than 50 percent opacity.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage and publication according to law.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
ATTESTS: William H. Droste, Mayor
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of , 2004.
Public Hearing:
6D. CASE 04 -66 -TA Reduced Front Yard Setbacks in the R -1A District for Open
Single Story Front Porches.
Assistant City Planner Lindahl reviewed the Staff Report. This zoning text amendment
was initiated by staff. If approved it would allow homeowners within the RI -A District
to expand and improve their property by permitting single story open front porches to
encroach 10 -feet into the required 30 -foot front yard setback. Mr. Lindahl also stated that
staff received a building permit application from a resident on Biscayne Way in the RI
District requesting to cover their current uncovered deck in front of their house. The
resident has been informed that they do not currently meet the setback for a coverage
structure under the RI Zoning setback standards and that this text amendment would not
relieve that burden from them. The resident would like emphasize that this is an older
area of housing more like the R 1 -A District and they feel they would like to add the front
porch for many of the reasons that staff has suggested. Staff researched the area and
found the neighborhood to be more like the R1 -A District. Staff is looking for direction
from the Planning Commission regarding either adding the Rl District which would open
up most of the residential area of town or include the RI District but limit it to homes
built before a certain time period. Staff feels adding the "year built" limitation would
focus the ability to add a front porch on older homes and neighborhoods more in need of
improvement. Another option would be to consider rezoning this specific neighborhood
under a separate action which would require another public hearing at a different
meeting.
Chairperson Messner had two questions for Mr. Lindahl regarding why the proposed text
amendment is limited to the Rl -A District and the differences between the RI-A and RI
Zoning Districts. Mr. Lindahl responded that the thinking from staff at this point was
that the R1 -A District was a more focused area given that it is the older, traditional
portion of town where the front porch feature would blend in well. This is also a market
trend that the older portion of town in the R- I A area has not had an opportunity to take
advantage of due to the current setbacks. Mr. Lindahl indicated the lot size standards are
the same for the RI-A and Rl Districts. He continued by adding that the side yard
setbacks are 10 feet for a two story structure and five feet for a single story structure
while they are 10 feet in the R -1 District. The rear yard setback in the R- 1 A is 25 feet
while its 30 feet in the R -1 District. Mr. Lindahl stated both districts have the same front
yard setbacks, of 30 feet. Mr. Lindahl said this is only request that staff has received for
this neighborhood. Discussion was held regarding the current setbacks in the PUDs. Mr.
Lindahl explained the current PUDs in the City including the front yard setback
reductions in Glendalough and Evermoor. Chairperson Messner, Commissioner Schultz
and Commissioner Powell all favored and encouraged adding R1 to the Ordinance.
Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing.
Chairperson Messner asked for public comments. There were no public comments.
MOTION by Messner to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Discussion
was held regarding continuing the Public Hearing since the inclusion of R1 was
going to be added to the Ordinance. City Planner Pearson indicated that the
Planning Commission can include the Rl into the motion. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn,
Messner and Powell Nays: None. Motion carried
Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions. Chairperson Messner asked if
Ordinance B is specific to Rl -A. Mr. Pearson indicated that Ordinance B is the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Lindahl further explained the amending of 7.2.C.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
MOTION by Messner to amend the text as written to include Rl. Second by
Zurn. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nayes: None.
Motion carried.
MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the amended
text amendment to Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance allowing single story
covered front porches to encroach 10 feet into the required 30 -foot front yard
setback. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and
Powell. Motion carried.
Mr. Lindahl indicated this item is scheduled to move onto the November 16, 2004 City
Council Meeting.
Excerpt from Regular Planning Commission Meeting 08 -24 -2004
New Business:
A. Proposed Text Amendment Permitting Covered Porches to Encroach 10 feet
into the Required Front Yard Setback
Assistant Planner Lindahl requested direction from the Commission regarding staff's
request to prepare a formal zoning text amendment. The amendment would allow a 10'
encroachment into the front yard setback for a covered porch. Staff believes front
porches enhance entrances to homes, adds to the architecture of neighborhoods and
creates a more pedestrian friendly community design.
Discussion continued regarding restricting this encroachment based on zoning districts,
steps leading to porches, ramps, roof eave encroachment, building codes, ADA standards,
and setbacks in other zoning districts within the City.
It was the consensus of the Commission to limit this text amendment to Rl and R1
zoning districts.
MOTION by Messner to direct staff to prepare a text amendment allowing
covered front porches to encroach ten feet into the required front yard setback
subject to the discussion points already discussed. Second by Zurn. Ayes:
Humphrey, Powell, Zurn, and Messner. Nays: None. Motion carried.
s. r
• � "' ►- � E LST�E� � B RO S. CONST F;L� TION•, IN:- IVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
1
I
S25 E
83, -.
DRAINAGE M JT1UTY 1
5 rEASEMIENT R PLAT j 5
q6 w
L 4
L-.�
to
1
a Z
4 PROIIQ SED
EXIST. ` t10!!SE �i
SOUS£ ! o
/ n
i I I BENCH MARK
p S"iAR,' TOP OF PIPE
SENCH MARK p r3' N f ELEV.. 954.21
£�9 9.81 _ Q .0 4 ~
M 9i689� 4 4) 937.9 M
{ ' PROPOSED
t p 5 1 DRIVEWAY ' 5 `
1 S 25 1
r 58 �C -k� -_- Rr f °59102"
-� -� R 6�18.Op �= ---- -�
958.5 953.6
CRANBER WAY - -_
NOTE: BuL OING ;a EX31O PiOWN ARE
FOR HOWZONTAL a VptTCAL LOC- NOTE: NO SvWFIC SOILS INVESTGATION HAS 8EL.. COMPLETED
ATiON OF STRMTVAE ONLY. 3EE ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR. THE SUVA94LrrY OF
aNC►IfTXC7LNA1 PLA iOIfNC�1tTi0H DWEit3'fWt 4' F011 3 EJ1LOf1iG
8 SOILS TO SUM"T THE ZF=jriC - Nam PAN am IS
r HOT THE RESPONSIMLr" OF THE SL/RVEYm
-+- -- DENOTES PROPOSED SURFACE DRAINAGE
Q DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET SCALE: 1 INCH — 30 FEET
r
DEN TES IRON MONUMENT FOUND PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR — 960- T FEET
XOOO.O DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED LOWEST FLOOR — Y s 3 FEET
1000.0) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED TOP OF BL — 96 b a FEET
,VE HERESY CERTIFY TO MITTELSTAEOT BROS. CONST: INC. THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
REPRESENTAT19N OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF
!-ul 4 Block I , SHANNON HILLS 4TH ADDITION, occording to the tecaded
plot iherwt, liennepin County, Minnesota.
iT OOES NOT PURPORT TO SHWA- IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS. EXCEPT AS SHOWN. hS
S: ;R'.'EYEC BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION THIS 14TH DAY OF M AY 1993.
I
`v1a4�t+ertW ;
11�•ti+V+1 �.r+ow 't+�?J1 S».ot'yQ.� '�1rir 'T.�+cr'Arf�Z
v3�Vrc+lryV..4*sert'sfnt�9 rtq 'f.atltp� t•�traW4t+�M
. ° � s .,1 9"►d y�j � q "�'� a'7 9 � b 3.x'1 A
va
DO'SL
C p-
rD Y �i
s' ir 1 't•55 t
■
�Z IV I
ml
tv
,S% � gIf " !
In d
0 4�Sad�•ttd Ri
d
° o
� •�r � s tory a
wti V ; �� •
Ad !�q
OO'SL
'Otto
iSN3
1
._
•)oa�ay4 laid 'pap.aau sq4 04 Eurµrn.7ae
71 e40sauw lb N )0 W49 SW ;0 saal a -isF n MoUlOar ON a NOITIOUNVO
JoAa.�S AWQ7 paJ04 s1 ft AMP a cre 1 Ali as Z )f2M ` 61 107
UO1 91AJadn9 j "J I p AW aaptn .ao aw A q pea ad" svw NDIJdIHXM d!?l "d
I-madaj 10 uvld 'tan ns s.-W 40y4 AP Ja0 Xqa lay 1
• M?! 1�'J! ! col ada a6pul edo sa4ousu
' swYd aswH I 4 PUl-4 W 1 M SPA J0 11 a A� - J&A .. OV uol4rna13 4odS PMdo-ld salou�V (o.hgb e)
8 f bfi _ - o - .g roo 4 — +M�seg .� Yssodvj�j u014eA813 j�S t�l4slx3 sa {ova . l•'t
!, • b — S6 a NO I l YA373 U007-4 1 N3113SVGA(73SOd0tld faS 9 PWA 9a4ou20 Q
aN011 YA373 V"I 9 )0 dO1 03SOdCeid juarnuom uoli saPum p
5 LS - NOI1YA373 Y007d 39Y 1/Y9 03SOdOdd
own
ot N-
J
00 M„LS,D£ N ds
�...� l• � � -'"-� • �,
�p bb i Q
Ul
v � o
w � err xt o
o z - -- of
tio yb oo 3 S �yy
110
t77its A OMMY0 W P0 OM Ma 1N W%
ss�.wswto sssrin aait +� slw»
/ - - � +r Q� ' .
BURNSVILLE
;
SPlit lc,vels get a facelift
Porch prompts council to change building code houses can send a mes o
being open to neighbors s That
BY BOB SHAW book and Web site dedicated to can potentially increase corn.
Pioneer Press remodelin the outdated AAdirondackrated� with homey munity solidarity, cut crime
g
Scott and homes. But it wasn't until the Whitley said the s Ht -level and increase home values —
Leslie Whitley Whitleys convinced the City remodeling P all for the price of a porch:
thought they were just build• Council to change he City g movement isn't Burnsville and oth
ing a front porch. codes that fi ont building just about front porches. Its orbs are enrnuraglth er sub more
But they were actually became a Porches about unity. people to jump on the split-
early pioneers in a split -level homes. possibility for most porch is an invitation level
remodeling boom to come in — it's a welcome b remodeling bandwagon
In Burnsville, where 46 That was last summer and ma " said Y Puslti a new book called
per- interest has s t tieY in her Split Visions. The suburbs also
cent of the homes are split- then as since driveway, as her dog, Harley,
lever tugged built a Web site spat.
the city had laid the Showing off her stained- i a leash. level.com, that is getting
groundwork with a how -to wo Architects and city officials
be cobblestone footing say that througL . -modeling, SPLIP-LMLS, 6B
(continued)
national attention from states as distant as r
Rhode Island
While tax hawks might criticize the
$1,1W Burnsville spent on the effort city
Planner Jenni Faulkner said there's a public
i
interest in encouraging remodeling — it pre-
serves communities. "It means that people
will stay in Burisville longer" said Faulkner.
The renovation movement gives inspirit.
tion to thousands of Twin Citians living in ..��
split- levels, a housing
as outdated as eight ttrack ta Dakota
County, another Web site sponsor, there are
about 4u uUU split - levels — 36 percent of the
total number of houses.
Histo rically ,
rall the spit-level design was
based on an introverted approach to hous•`�
ing according to architect Robert PHOTO COURTESY of WHITLEY FAneitY
Minneapolis, who designed the Web siteff of were P const o ructed t resemble two residence ory hoes, but builders only had to
Split-levels originally half of a
SPlit-leveis began in the late 195N as a basement — a big cost savings.
reaction to pre-World War . II urban homes,
which had small lots, front porches and
detached single -car garages on alleys The
split -level signaled the ascendancy of suburbs
and an American car culture, with twostall
garages under the same roof as the people
Split - levels were inexpensive, stripped.
down houses for the masses, said Gerloff
They looked like two -story homes, but
builders only had to excavate half of a base
�r
ment — a big cost savings.
What some call an uninviting front
facade was deliberate. Architects figured° - 3
bomeownera
want2d privacy above all so ".
they Put garage doors, plain front doors and
small windows facing the street
Toward the back were larger windows,
ki tchen. ilvin roo - � �� '"'.,� •� �� � `
g m decks or patios and
large back yards. There was no front porch
And they reveled in monotony. Develop-
ers cranked out thousands of identical split.
levels, often side by side. In the Whitleys' r
cul-de -sac, four of the five homes have idea- 3ir�
deal floor plans.
Split- levels reigned supreme to the sub- P " �*
orbs for about 30 years, But by the 19gos ; t
Privacy started to feel like loneliness. Home ,
buyers be differently • � ! ;!
gan to think — seeking -"This porch is an invitation to come in s ys h h CRAIG BOflc
itley of stained
closeness with their neighbors rather than entrance. A recent p hoto show: how the P K. P 0NEER PRESS
separation
orch softens the spltevel appearance.
Today, new neighborhoods have side - create a look with an outgoing personality, porch —
walks —anathema to traditional suburbs. They envisioned a Northwoods -style front He knows of "literally
Many homes are being built closer to the, the biggest in Btu nsville," he said
street, with front porches I their stretching across the middle third of remodeled split - levels to add People" who
i �er windows their home. great rooms or
toward the front and smaller
But there's a problem Any sudden tur•�l we are facing forward, not fioWhitlebes.
change in housing fads can leave cities in a g Whitley said. Wortley said the split -level renovation
bind. They can sit and watch their housing Johnson weer o� code was changed, Jim bo hoods.
"Everyone the potential to save neigh-
quality deteriorate, or be Pro - active and Inc., ole House Exteriors
ebegan work on the Whitley s front rural areas tot these new house But it leave tin out in
Progressive" the porch. these communities in decay," she said.
said Gerloff; way Burnsville is doing, "The before- and -after is unbelievable,"
He said another communi said Johnson. He said m We like Burnsville • We like the low
ty with a simf• size of the Wh s any porches the taxes. We want to stay here."
lar problem is Richfield, which grew rapid' Ys' would cost about , what will be the next housing fad to need
Gerloff couldn't help commenting o0
after WWII, before the split -level boom. It'd' It cost to Whitie more because
they changed the roo
became packed with Cape Cod homes, the fline to include the serious rethinking.
storY•and -a -half design with a detached Porch. "Its the McMansio otherneighberh;oil as elltTim Ci�nmgin the
we are said Gerloff
said Gerloff shill lives thosee g °mg to be subdividing
garage. "They look like Monopoly houses,
Once they started planting their porch a few miles away and even tough he doesn't
the Whitleys discovered the fairly flat face nrse u�npilt•le he figured his house could Bob Shaw can be reached at bshaw
n which to p for t
Of their house. was a blank slate o he same reasons, @pioneer-
. "We are about to add a wraparound press.com or 65 1. 228.5433. I
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2004 —
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHANGE OF
ROSEMOUNT CITY LOGO AND SLOGAN
WHEREAS, the City has heretofore committed to updating the established City logo to convey pride in the
community and encourage opportunities for growth and progress in economic development; and
WHEREAS, the City will proceed to obtain legal protection of the new design and key message
for use by the City staff; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined to replace the City of Rosemount paper stock requiring the City design
in the normal course of business to avoid unnecessary expenditures; and
WHEREAS, City staff will create and follow design guidelines that will maintain the consistency of
the visual identity system and make it easier to implement in new usages.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves
the marketing logo retaining a green three - leafed shamrock followed by black print - ROSEMOUNT,
this being underlined, and beneath that a statement, "SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS as the
professional representation of the City of Rosemount.
ADOPTED this 16 day of November, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
_ Second by: