Loading...
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.