HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Appeal of Planning Commission Interpretation of a Zoning Ordinance Standard-for Gary & Wendy Jo Raak, 13429 South Robert TrailCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date: March 6, 2003
AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Planning Commission Interpretation
AGENDA SECTION:
of a Zoning Ordinance Standard.
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
AGENDA
ATTACHMENTS: Gary & Wendy Jo Raak Correspondence,
APPROVED BY:
Zoning Ordinance excerpt, PC Minutes 1 -14-
Applicant & Property Owner(s): Gary & Wendy Jo Raak
Location: 13429 South Robert Trail
Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Transition Residential
Current Zoning: Rural Residential
Zoning Issue: Compliance with Accessory Structure Standards Section 7.2.A.6.b & d.
SUMMARY
Mr. & Ms. Raak own the farmstead on South Robert Trail west of the Brockway Golf Course. They hope to re-
roof the barn and other outbuildings with standing seam metal roofs. The attached booklet also indicates that
new metal siding is proposed. The zoning ordinance specifies under Section 7.2.A.6 Accessory Buildings:
b. Roofs shall be shingled with asphalt, wood, or tile to match the home (principal building).
(and,)
d. Siding which is identical or closely matches the home (principal building) shall be incorporated
into the design of the accessory building.
The problem is that the home has a cedar shake roof, and a combination of brick & stone walls. Clearly, it
would be impractical to re -roof and re -side the out buildings (accessory structures) with the same materials.
Staff's interpretation of the ordinance is that color and texture of materials should be as close to identical as
possible, if it is impractical to use identical materials. The intent of the ordinance seems to suggest identical or
same materials. The owners are asking that matching the color of the cedar shake roof should be sufficient.
This action / request is an interpretation of the existing language in the zoning ordinance. It is not a variance
request, so making an exception in the case of the Raak property is not an option. How this ordinance is now
interpreted by Council will be the way it is applied by staff in the future, if different from current practice.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission reluctantly upheld the staff interpretation. During their discussion, they adopted a
second motion to recommend that the City Council consider future amendments that would treat traditional
farmsteads differently from rural residential uses. The Commissioners accepted that they had to work within the
existing language, and Chairman Weisensel observed that staff seemed to be fairly lenient given the exact
language.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to uphold the Planning Commission interpretation of Section 7.2.A.6.b & d.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
13429 South Robert Trail, Rosemount, MN 55068 (651) 322 -5577
January 7, 2003
City Hall
Planning Commissioners
2875 W.145 th Street
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Gary & I have been in the process of improving and restoring all our out building at 13429 South Robert Trail. We did not think that a building permit was
necessary since we're just recovering the old material with new and improved material. Then the building inspector informed us differently.
We went to City Hall to get a permit and were informed that the materials we were using needed to match our primary residence. While at City Hall, we could not
get a true definition and understanding of match (color, shape, size, texture ? ? ?), so were instructed to attend the city meeting on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 to
explain what our project consists of and how we were planning to do it. Please review the pictures of the buildings as they are today.
This is what we have in mind for our re- covering project:
• Keep the historic character that they have with updated and new materials.
• Re -roof all out buildings with standard brown metal roofing. (Samples will be available at meeting.)
• Re -side all out buildings with standard tan metal siding. (Samples will be available at meeting.)
Our primary residence has cedar shakes that are dark brown due to weathering. As you can see from the pictures, the brown metal and cedar shakes are almost
the same color.
We expect that by having the roofs on all re- covered in dark brown that they match the cedar shakes per the city rule.
Most all people traveling up and down Highway 3 would agree that the new and updated materials we are proposing to use will look much better than what the
currently look like.
We hope that you will give us the approval to continue our project.
Sincerely,
Ga & Wendy Jo Raak
Property Owners
y
j 1
r
Ll :�;'; ,
tali E, a
4'r+? rt ^�
i , r 1 +'...♦
iD
A ¢t i� �t �
t A f , ►l
I NE
n°.. ; �.,
(- w
f
go f l y 'k.:' ' � C { iC..:.r • {'° � �� / ' �:>�
)/� , , { ,r,, '1. •�� � r ..� w -fr .�, a ,� .,fl ,�,' 1, I'�: a`:
� - p. ;. 'i� � i'w:'' .. � �• .. -. ri . m aid *• ,�.
C 'd 1Y � x � 1 } a . � • r LAS •� �w .
f r ! � �41/ r� ti i M ` ti •w 1 t., r, K ,,. ./ d.:r�P�!° "ya �- ?' "�'°
� � �•��' �{'a"�y�: y . C � r 1y r 1 'w ° " t ,^ � i � x � r.,,- � ,, ,p, }�� .{:�.`e:r �y1�r� ;�'xR:
't•.yi,�'c'vS +,., L+�� h. .11 -:.. L k 'a`I - Y 1 .. � .�
�'yyJ�lr���e F��S4 ''�^t 6' '� ♦ p�i.� .M' x t 'Y �' '� . i' .' y *��:
tj
I
;7
r
r `
1'
+
r S:
r
4 P `� II ; t 4Y 71 L s '� •1g t5' tai+. x, °•.,� �.i 1 Y" 1•{ 7r� �
s '4• f ►_� s I ,h �
1 ii
� #� �.� Ar7�,, , �
\ �3 �-64' -
, w 1 �(' f �.�pr
�1' A♦ Q a Y ro
. �� ,�y 9 _ .i'•' � "i +yam 1 i �.� � `y' 6�
�b f T !
° ° n..v - - ^wee
i " IT
r
•0 +.�!(t�/S 11�a (f 1. , r " �� 1' •�� i� 1 1 �� �� a +. ;, . _:<
�_.'j; r� - �' ^ � Irl• ,,;;�,�� _1 rh:, 'u ..:e�',�l i.��+.�'.: i�ll� ..1 ' •,•y
" �;K i � #-
7 ��. m7Mr�tdi .ul�.�.`,'i�.'1:6 +�•'��� � ' ��a 1 �f � #' � (},.
o p � :y�* t'4° �`�'�s's �+r��f .�C� ��s .! sdh �' r,•'x ! .';
t t / i� • ' .. is..n .y,:.:. - °, . j ' r 1.
4.M 8 t 1 il.'
STORAGE BUILDING
�..
t
�2 tit•�^,��.�"�a� � ar �,,. ' . i +�i 1!Il �w I�jq,�
r n'Sw
� { '�v r t .. A
F'!¢• iii � , r
�i=ah�'+#'lwW*A[ {i'YN..un. �..e :,'fa• •.M.nuuac+9 a. �'
G
fi
t
s '
J
4 t
+. T q" `
v
t AP�r r tx G ! '.
.,�
%- I�pt
po F_rvt o vc l�`� rc t rc Cs ��+ b C� � c r- L�
remain exposed. Buildings over one hundred thousand (100,000) square
feet of floor area shall be reviewed under Planned Unit Development (PUD)
requirements. Any exterior metal used for the building shall have a factory-
applied permanent finish. (Ord. B -53, 4- 18 -95)
5. Single- Family Dwelling Requirements: All single- family detached
dwellings shall be constructed according to the following minimum standards:
a. All dwellings shall have a minimum width of twenty -four feet
b. All dwellings shall have a frost -free foundation as defined by the
applicable building code. Split level, split entry and earth sheltered homes
shall be considered to comply with this requirement.
c. Main roofs shall have a minimum pitch of 3:12 per definition of
the applicable building code.
d. Roofs shall be shingled with asphalt, wood, tiles, sod or other
comparable materials as approved by the applicable building code.
e. Metal siding, with exposed panels exceeding sixteen inches
(16 ") in width, shall not be permitted.
f. Earth sheltered homes will be permitted on the basis of side
conditions, which are conducive to such housing, or in areas where
changes to existing site conditions are complementary to the site and
adjacent properties and the existing character of property and strictures in
the area.
6. Accessory Buildings: Prefabricated metal storage buildings are limited to
one hundred twenty (120) square feet maximum area in the R -1, R -IA, R -2,
RL, RR, and AG (under twenty (20) acres and /or for non - agricultural use west
of Akron Avenue) Districts.
Maximum aggregate total for any accessory building(s), excluding
attached garage, is one thousand (1,000) square feet in R -1, R -IA, R -2,
and RL Districts.
Maximum aggregate total for any accessory building(s), excluding
attached garage, is one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in the
City of Rosemount
1
Page 125
RR or AG (under twenty (20) acres and/or for non - agricultural use west of
Akron Avenue) Districts.
Any accessory building in the R -1, R -IA, R -2, RL, RR, or AG (under
twenty (20) acres and/or for non - agricultural use west of Akron Avenue)
Districts over one hundred fifty (150) square feet must be constricted of
materials comparable with and complimentary to the principal structure.
Comparable treatment includes the following requirements:
a. A minimum 3:12 roof pitch;
X 7 1 b. Roofs shall be shingled with asphalt, wood, or tile to match the
home (principal building).
c. Adequate number of windows shall be provided to break up the
solid plane or exterior walls to simulate the character of the home
(principal building).
d. Siding which is identical or closely matches the home (principal
building) shall be incorporated into the design of the accessory building.
EXCEPTIONS: In the RR or AG (under twenty (20) acres and/or for non -
agricultural use west of Akron Avenue) Districts accessory strictures may
exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet under the following
circumstances:
a. The maximum aggregate area for accessory structures shall not
exceed fifty (50) percent of the ground floor area of the principal building,
including attached garage.
b. Maximum lot coverage shall not exceed ten (10) percent
impervious surface.
(Ord. B -46, 9- 23 -94)
Accessory buildings to be constructed in the AG (Agriculture) or AG -P
(Agricultural Preserves) Districts east of Akron Avenue are limited to a maximum
aggregate total of 2,400 square feet of area for properties under twenty (20) acres
in size or if the building is for non - agricultural use.
City of Rosemount
Page 126
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
January 14, 2003
Page 2
lic Hearing: Solberg Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal
This i routine renewal for a mineral extraction perm' or Solberg Aggregate Company, Inc.
The pit is orth of the former Chicago Northweste railroad tracks and is completely enclosed
by a fence re is one access through a gate f the frontage road of STH 52. The pit is in the
final phase with pletion and site restor on to be done in 2004. There have been no
complaints reported arding this prop y.
The Rosemount Town Pages a nable to publish the public hearing notice in time to satisfy
the statutory requirements so a recommends the public hearing be opened and continued until
January 28, 2003.
Chairperson Weise opened the public
MOTION ,y Schiltz to continue the public hearing u January 28, 2003. Second by
Anderso Ayes: Weisensel, Messner, Schiltz, Anderson, pper. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Business: None.
New Business: Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance Standard
This item pertains to an old farmstead on South Robert Trail owned by Gary and Wendy Raak.
They are hoping to re -roof the barn and other outbuildings with standing seam metal roofs. They
also have an interest in residing the buildings with metal siding. Section 7.2.A.6 & D of the
zoning ordinance state that roofs shall be shingled with asphalt, wood, or tile to match the home
(principal building) and siding which is identical or closely matches the home (principal
building) shall be incorporated into the design of the accessory building.
The home currently has a brown cedar shake roof and a combination of brick & stone walls.
Staff's interpretation of the ordinance is that color and texture of materials should be as close to
identical as possible, if it is impractical to use identical materials. The Raak's are asking that
matching the color of the cedar shake roof should be sufficient. It should also be noted that this
property exceeds the accessory structure allowance in terms of building square footage. They
can continue to maintain the buildings, but they cannot be enlarged nor can any additional
buildings be constructed. If the Planning Commission makes an exception for the Raak property,
the ordinance will be applied that way by Staff in the future. Staff recommends upholding the
staff interpretation.
There was discussion amongst the Commissioners to determine what the current ordinance said
and how it should be interpreted. The Commission felt this was an issue that the City Council
needed to look at in more detail and perhaps treat farmsteads differently than the current rural
residential standards. This is an issue that will come up again with the various farmsteads within
the City. The Commission questioned why this was not a variance and Mr. Pearson stated that
variances are based on hardship.
Gary Raak, 13429 South Robert Trail, was in the audience to answer questions. He stated that
they are trying to make several of their outbuildings look better. They want to do the roofs in
dark brown to match the house and feel that should be enough. He said this is an interpretation
of a rile.
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
January 14, 2003
Page 3
The Commission went over the rules for updating existing buildings and building new ones in
the rural residential district. They felt the issue was a difference in appearance and that the
ordinance should be amended to address farmsteads more specifically. Mr. Pearson stated that
the Raak's could maintain the structures but they could not add onto them or replace them if they
were more than 50 percent damaged.
MOTION by Weisensel to strongly recommend to City Council that they have staff investigate
and determine the standards for existing farmsteads in this type of situation. More direction is
needed on what exactly is allowed. Second by Anderson. Ayes: Messner, Schiltz, Anderson,
Napper, Weisensel. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
MOTION by Weisensel to uphold the staff interpretation of Section 7.2.A.6.b &d. Second by
Napper. Ayes: Schiltz, Anderson, Napper, Weisensel, Messner. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Chairperson Weisensel that the Commission agrees the Raak's should have the ability to do the
maintenance on their property but that the ordinance
Mr. Pearson told Mr. Raak that he can appeal this decision in writing within 10 working days.
There will be a cost of $165 to cover the public hearing that the City Council will schedule.
ew Business: Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance for D ota County Garage
Da to County is moving their maintenance garage to a ne location and have an interest in
perms ing the Technical College to use part of the site o iscayne Avenue for training and
vehicle aintenance. The site is currently zone R -1 L Density Residential which permits
elementa nd secondary schools as a Conditional se Permit. Staff's interpretation is that this
use is close e ough in terms of site impacts to be eated as a Conditional Use Permit. Because
the maintenanc of vehicles is a continuation o a non - conforming use, they can continue without
intensification or 4vansion.
Ken Harrington, Dakot County, stated alf of the main building will be used by the Technical
College. The Highway D artment a,4 still use a portion of the site for storage, etc.
Ron Thomas, President of Da County Technical College, said that enrollment has increased
by 25 percent. They would us t is site for their auto restoration and concrete manufacturing
programs as well as for stor
Commissioner Messnet/ questioned if the�UP would apply to the entire site and Mr. Pearson
stated it should be br en down.
MOTION by ssner to uphold the staff interpr ation that the Dakota County Maintenance
facility on BI ayne Avenue may be used by Dakot County Technical College for training and
maintenanc subject to compliance with the requireme s and standards for Conditional Use
Pen econd by Napper. Ayes: Anderson, Napper, eisensel, Messner, Schiltz. Nays: 0.
Motion,6arried.
earson told Mr Harrington and Mr. Thomas that the next steNwould be to go through the
itional Use Permit application process.
thb.6tl UN:bS ybz 4.3L .31bu 6EVhX6QN ShELDVN DVUC7tibl<TX $!)400 1 /UU4
SEVERSON, SHELDON,
DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA,, P.A.
SUITE 600
7300 WEST 147TH STREET
APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124 -7580
(952)432 -3136
TELEFAX NUMBER (952) 432 -3780
E -MAIL lings@seversonsheldon.com
TO: Rosemount City Council
Rosemount City Planner's Office
FROM: Stephen A. Ling, Esq.
DATE: February 28, 2003
RE: Gary and Wendy Jo Raak
13429 South Robert Trail, Rosemount, N4N
Introduction
I am sending this memorandum on behalf of our clients, Gary and Wendy Jo Raak, to
clarify our clients' concerns and desires with regard to the public hearing to be heard on March
6, 2003. The public hearing concerns the proposed improvements to their barn and other
accessory structures located on their property at 13429 South Robert Trail. The property is
clearly visible from Highway 3 which is well traveled highway. Our clients have lived on their
property for many years and have used the accessory structures and barns to b.ouse horses and
other traditional farmstead supplies.
Proposed Improvements
Our clients would like to make substantial improvements to the bam and accessory
buildings located on their property. Due to the age and weatberirig of some of the buildings,
many of the current structures have begun to show their age and their appearance has generally
declined. Accordingly, our clients would like to. update and improve the appearance of these
accessory structures while at the same time maintaining their historic character..
The improvements proposed by our clients involve recovering the current siding and
roofing materials with new and improved materials. The proposed roofing material is a high
grade brown metal roofing that closely matches the color of their house, which is the principle
structure located on the property. My clients also would like to re -side the accessory buildings
with a high grade tan metal siding. Both, the siding and roofing materials were carefully chosen
"o-40 cuu.:5 ur:00 tioz 4.5Z siou 5EVERSON SHELDON DOUGHERTY #5466 P.003/004
by our clients to complement their house and other structure located on the property and to
greatly improve the aesthetic character of the property.
In order for the City Council to better understand the type of materials that our clients
have proposed to use, our clients intend on having samples of the proposed materials available
for inspection on the evening of March 6, 2003.
Zoning Concerns
Our clients' properly is located within a rural residential zoning district. Accordingly, the
relevant portion of the zoning code for our client's property requires that all accessory buildings
meet certain standards. Our clients have been told, and the zoning code also appears to require,
that the accessory buildings "be constructed of materials comparable with and complimentary to
the principal structure."
Despite the complementary nature of our clients' proposed improvements, it has been
suggested that our clients must use a goofing material identical to the material used on their
principal structure. In this case, their residence (the principal structure) is currently covered with
cedar shakes. Clearly the intent of the ordinance is to maintain a sense of uniformity between the
outbuildings and the principle structure, but such uniformity should not require our clients to
cover the roof of their barn and other outbuildings with cedar shakes. Requiring our clients to
utilize cedar shakes on all of their accessory structures, seems to be irrational and beyond the
scope and intent of the current zoning ordinance. Moreover, such a requirement would be cost
prohibitive and may result in the buildings remaining in their present unimproved condition.
It has been further suggested that in place of the proposed siding materials that our clients
should match the siding of the principle structure. Again, in this case, such a requirement
appears to go beyond the scope and intent of the ordinance. Our client's principal residence is
sided with. brown. brick. The intent of maintaining a sense of uniformity between the accessory
structures and the principal residence should not go so far as to irrationally require that the our
clients' barn and other farmstead structures be recovered with brown brick.
A requirement that our clients shingle their barn and other traditional farmstead accessory
structures with cedar shakes and brick siding appears irrational and inconsistent with the general
purpose of the zoning code. Not only would such a requirement be cost prohibitive, but it would
also impact the historic character of these structures.
Conclusion
Our clients strongly desire to improve the aesthetic character of their accessory structures
not only for themselves, but also for the people' wb.o see their property as they travel along
Highway 3. The would like to improve and update these structures while at the same time
maintaining their ]historic character. Therefore, our clients hereby seek the approval of the
Rosemount City Council to proceed with. their planned improvements with the materials that
they have proposed to use on the improvement project. Traditional farmstead structures, such as
those located on our clients' property, arc almost never sided with brick or shingled with cedar
shakes. Such a requirement would go well beyond the scope and intent of the ordinance for our
client's farmstead property and would destroy the historic character of the buildings themselves.
Moreover such a requirement would likely make the improvement project cost prohibitive and
may result in the buildings remaining in their unimproved state.