HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.f. Zoning Text Amendment for Accessory Structures in AG and RR Districts CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 7, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment for accessory AGENDA SECTION:
structures in AG and RR districts New Business
requested by John Remkus, 13040
Akron Avenue
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, Assistant Planner AGENDA NO...
EM # 6 F
ATTACHMENTS: Draft amendment, PC minutes and 4-23- APPROVED BY:
96 reviews.
Mr. John Remkus has requested a zoning text amendment that will legitimize a shed that he
constructed without a permit as well as enable the construction of future sheds on his 10 acre
property in the Agriculture (AG) District.
Mr. Remkus purchased his property with an existing 2400 sq. Ft. structure and was frustrated
in his ability to get a building permit for an additional accessory structure because the existing
shed exhausted the available allowance by ordinance. Planning Staff was interested in
revisiting the ordinance standards because of the current ordinance distinction between "east"
and "west" along Akron Avenue as well as an apparent allowance for relatively small 2.5 acre
properties east of Akron Avenue to have a metal "pole barn" of up to 2400 sq. Ft.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached draft amendment that creates
various thresholds of lot area required for proportionate increases in the allowance for
accessory structures. The trade-off is that all structures of over 150 sq. Ft. must now be
compatible with the residential (principal) structure in terms of materials and color.
The process included several draft amendments. The first draft amendment allowed up to
3,000 sq. Ft. and the Planning Commission directed Staff to increase the allowance. The 4-23-
96 draft which allowed up to 4,800 sq. Ft. was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission but not without some concern that the threshold was then too high. One solution
to this concern would be to limit the amendment to properties in the AG district and limit RR
properties to the current maximum of 1,200 sq. Ft. The City Council may choose to table
action regarding the amendment and direct Staff to revise the amendment to reflect this or
other changes as appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION to adopt the attached zoning text amendment for
accessory structures relative to the Agriculture and Rural
Residential Districts.
COUNCIL ACTION:
DRAFT
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 7.2 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS of Ordinance B - City of
Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows:
6. Accessory Buildings: Prefabricated metal storage buildings are limited to one
hundred twenty(120) square feet maximum area in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, RL, RR
and AG(under twenty(20) acres and/or for non-agricultural use)
Avenue)Districts.
Maximum aggregate total for any accessory ry buildin s s , excludin attached
garage, is one thousand (1,000) square feet in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, and RL
Districts.
Maximum aggregate total for any accessory building(s), excluding attached
garage, ' - - .. • • • , !! -• - - • •• in the RR or AG(under
twenty (20) acres and/or for non agricultural use )Districts
shall conform to the following dimensional standards which are based upon the
available area of the lot or parcel:
Lot or parcel size Maximum lot coverage Maximum aggregate
total for accessory
buildings
0 - 2.5 acres 10% 1.000 sq. ft.
2.6 - 5 acres 10% 1.200 sq. ft.
5.1 - 7,5 acres 5% 2.400 sq. ft.
7.6 - 9.9 acres 5% 3.000 sq. ft.
Ten acres or more 5% 4,800 sq. ft.*
Fractional lot areas shall be rounded up to the next highest tenth of an acre.
The maximum area of any single accessory building shall not exceed
3,000sq. ft.
Any accessory building in the R-1, R-1A, R-2, RL, RR or Ag (under twenty (20)
acres and/or for non agricultural use Districts over one
hundred fifty (150) square feet must be constructed of materials comparable with
and complimentary to the principal structure. Comparable treatment includes the
following requirements:
A. A minimum 3:12 roof pitch;
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.
E. The height of accessory structures shall be limited to one story as defined
in the Uniform Building_Code.
EXEPTIONS: In RR or AG(under twenty (20) acres and/or for non agricultural
use on 2.6 or more acres« st of kr "' ^venue) Districts accessory structures
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.
'Stiff-nee,
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
according to law.
Enacted and ordained into an Ordinance this day of , 1996.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Cathy Busho, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 1996.
•
- F CITY OF RO S E M O U N T 2875-`1fit"s eet West
P.O. Box 510
�. Rosemount,MN
Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!!
0210
Phone:e:612 612 423 4411
Fax:612-423-5203
Planning Commission
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 23, 1996
$tttrsuant to due call and notice thereof, a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was ly✓field on
Tuesday, April 23, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. Chairperson William Droste called the meeting-to order with
members Mark DeBettignies, Jay Tentinger, Patrick McDermott and KiimShoi Ce orrigan present. Also
in attendance was Community Development Director Dan Ropess;`Senior Planner Andrew Mack,
Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, Engineer Dou Litterer.anti$uilding Official Paul Heimkes.
Planner Pearson stated that there were no addition`s or. rrecti Q
Assistant co ions to the agenda.
MOTION by Tenting er to approve the April 9, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as
presente conded by McDermott. Ayes: DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste, Shoe--C-6- 'a n and
Mc rmott. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5-0. \
Old Business: John & Joyce Remkus - Zoning Text Amendment
Assistant Planner Pearson related the background of this request and recapped the two previous hearings
on this matter. Mr. Pearson stated that he contacted several cities in the metropolitan area to obtain their
ordinances in regards to accessory structures. Pursuant to this research and previous direction from the
Planning Commission, Mr. Pearson stated that he revised the proposed zoning text amendment. The
current proposal is a staggered system with the maximum aggregate total allowed for accessory
structures being in proportion to the size of the parcel. Mr. Pearson mentioned that he received guidance
from Building Official Heimkes in regards to the Uniform Building Code requirements, i.e. height of
accessory structures. Mr. Pearson felt that a strong point of this amendment was that accessory -
structures must be compatible with the principal structure and, thus, no "pole barns" would be allowed.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed height restrictions; other cities' ordinances; the possibility of
"grandfathering" properties in relation to this proposed amendment; and'enforcenient of this amendment.
It was mentioned that this amendment is a"trade-off' whereby, for increased accessory structure square
• footage, pole barns will not be allowed.
Member DeBettignies suggested, and the Commission concurred, that Paragraph E: Exceptions be
amended to read".:.on 2.6 or more acres..."
The Commissioners also discussed whether or not the maximum aggregate total for accessory buildings
was now-oo high. Assistant Planner-Pearson replied that he increased the maximum aggregate total
pursuant Co direction received from-the`Commission at its last meeting on April 9, 1996.
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings ,
April 23,2996. -
Page 2 .
MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance amendment.for,.
accessory structures in the Agriculture and Rural Residential Districts subject to the modification.of
Paragraph E: Exceptions. Seconded by Shoe-Corrigan. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe-Corrigan, -. °
McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0..Motion passes 5-0. . i
' i lic y 1 ' . e*tic v t I - • rdin,n • • men I if e i _ .
C'Ziperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled:at this timeto.hear public testimony regarding .
the pry.sed Septic System Ordinance amendment. The.recording secretary �''placed the Affidavit of ,
Publicati. Affidavit of Posting of Public.Hearing Notice on file.with theity.
es related.that the Metropolitan litan Council;, on. , .and,acc tance of the...
Building Official\I�e Po Council,n.upon/gr b'� �, �.
City's Comprehensive ide Plan; is mandating that-the Cite,sppro✓e..anzon .ite sew.age.treaiment.
system maintenancez�din ce. Mr. Heimkes stated that this proposed ordinance,has.been.reviewed and
discussed at 2 previousty*el�gublic informational meetings. trice that time, he stated that he has
revised this proposed ordinance include: (1) changes to definition of"failed septic system" and
"imminent public beat ;.( o sic systrim owners,approximately-5.years ta.come into.
-ri if. la -�Y8111, ;�and►{_ ..' .,_Eara . .a t. uu'.esseutics tem.. , .
'iL 2".11,1 .....r... ..,l:v.•1,le*• 6-.s .. Y A Ogg r ..q • ..4..jd_ St;:a.l, .,,.,<.4 +,t .,2644 4%,t'414r r.-frealth 'eq.*y .„-:,
.-711.t.,s+w`. ::'alas, s....J):.....♦ 41,4 i 441;..• '.:f.,. .r.it •t .1 ti?,'Oe'.1*.a'4 )}.7 J4 v jr-_ S'• s
rfY.R�.,:71`tl.'a]..ws' •3 .+..1,1.14.-4A :' 4 ' .. , Y�., :5.'e11 sSA `..... ..
1
The Commissioners and Building Official ' eimke ' cussed and questioned.;how this.ordinance would,
be implemented and the approximate cast to a c syste owner..for an.inspection.and.pumping:
(approximately $80.00). f
Laxman S. Sundae, 2637 132nd Court f, est,.explained hiss nsive background in septic systems to the
Commissioners. Restated that Mere js/no legal basis for this •.. • .ce amendment and felt that if a
system fails, the homeownerthe�fir to know and,will repair ern.Mr...Sundae also stated that
there is no necessity for this amendment and felt this was a"nuisance'_P ordinance.. f
An individual re resenting Iiei mother who lives at 1239.1 Dodd Blvdstatedthat since the first
informational meetin maj iy changes have been made to the proposed amendment which she was very
appreciative of. She questioned whether having no manhole on a septic sy.stem�w'4ld automatically.. .I
"fail” the system.//fluiIding Official Heimkes replied that a manhole is required and without one the
system will be./cOnsidered"failed."He stated that a septic system owner.would have-Sears to bring this
issue into co. pliance. Tls individual did not understand why, if a system is otherwise'wclpng properly,
the manho - would be required. Mr. Heimkes explained the purpose of the manhole and the approximate
cost ($2••.06 to $600.00) to have one installed. - \`�
De , s4Ji PP ermann, 12538 Danbury Way, mentioned that he supported the concept and'principal of
t >mendment in that if a system is causing environmental concerns, then it should be repaired or\
-placed. However, Mr..,Wippermann believed that all septic system owners were being penalized
because of a few owncF-who neglect their systems. He stated that this ordinance..was.ye> intrusive an
a t �, « �
,1-1,,-..� CITY OF ROSEMOUNTa ,
,_ CUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTIO . _
Planning Commission Meeting Date: April 23, 1996
AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment for Accessory, _ AGENDA SECTION: Old
Structures requested by John and Joyce Business
Remkus
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, Assistant Planner AGENDA NO. 5A.
ATTACHMENTS: Revised Draft Ordinance, Memo, APPROVED BY: iy_____
Correspondence, Previous PC Reviews
On April 9, 1996, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing regarding the requested
zoning ordinance amendment to increase the allowance for non-agriculture accessory structures
in the Agriculture and Rural residential Districts. The Planning Commission directed Staff to
research other communities, consider increased setbacks from property lines and other
buildings and visibility from right-of-way {ROW).
The research data relative to other communities was inconclusive in terms of producing a
workable "model" ordinance. Several issues are "key" in adopting an amendment to the
accessory structure standards:
1. As with all residential building permits, the Building Department will be in the "front line"
of implementing the ordinance and interpreting or identifying non-conforming issues that
would require enforcement activities.
2. Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards that regulate the type of buildings falling into the.
accessory building catagory have some influence on the maximum size of a structure and
minimum separation of buildings.
3. The current ordinance standards have been inpiace since September of 1989, excluding
the exceptions section that was adopted last year. The point being that many people
have complied with those standards whether or not they agreed with them.
4. The philosophy that guided the original ordinance intended to protect rural residential
uses and discourage the establishment of non-conforming uses is still valid and should
not be compromised. Accessory structures must still be compatible with the principal
stucture in terms of aesthetics and construction. Allowing "pole barns" for non-
agricultural uses opens up the "Pandora's box" of facilitating undesirable uses in rural
residential and agricultural areas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION to recommend that );he City Council adopt the
attached ordinance amendment for accessory structures in
the Agriculture and Rural Residential Districts.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
To: Planning Commission _
From: Rick Pearson, Assistant Planner
Date: April 17, 1996
RE: Rural Residential Accessory Structure Standards of Other Cities
A number of other cities have been contacted for thier accessory structure standards relative to
rural residential uses. A wide variety of approaches are exemplified in the responces received
from cities that were chosen because of their position on the"fringe" of the developing urban area
coupled with a reasonably large proportion of rural residential uses.
Chanhassen
Maximum size is regulated only by setbacks from property lines and maximum impervious
surface standards of 20% for rural residential uses or residential uses in the agriculture
districts. Although an allowance for 20% impervious surface is considered quite high, few
problems have resulted.
Cottage Grove
Allows up to two 2,000 square foot structures with a conditional use permit (CUP) plus
an additional allowance for a 160 sq. ft. tool shed.
Inver Grove Heights
Agriculture, Estate and Residential districts allow a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 sq.
ft. With a potential for additional allowances with a CUP.
Maple Grove
Residential Agriculture (non farm) allows up to 1,000 sq. ft. for attached garages plus
1,150 sq. ft. for detached (accessory) structures. However, allowances are made for
agricultural residential uses of more than ten acres. One quarter of one percent of land
area exceeding ten acres is available up to a maximum of an additional 1,075 sq. ft. As a
result, approximately 20 acres would be needed to allow a maximum of 3,225 square feet
for accessory structures.
Lakeville
Residential Agriculture districts allow a maximum of 3% of the land to be covered with
accessory structures up to a maximum of 13,068 sq. ft. For example, a 2.5 acre lot would
allow up to 3,267 sq. ft.; a 5 acre lot would allow 6,534 sq. ft. Ten acres would be
needed to achieve the maximum. _ . .
Prior Lake
Pole buildings are prohibited except for agricultural and conservancy districts. There are
R-1 zoned lots in the rural area and the maximum allowance for accessory structures is
831 sq. ft.
•
•
•
August 23, 1996 Planning Commission Reviews
Page 2.
Shakopee -
Agriculture and rural districts have no size restrictions for accessory structures with the
exception of a height restriction of 15 feet. Urban residential limits accessory structures to
10% of lot area or 75% of the foot print of the principal structure (house), which ever is
less. Shakopee tends to be permissive relative to rural accessory structures because of
Canterberry Downs.
Woodbury
Five acres of unplatted land in the rural area will allow a combination of a garage
(attached or detached) plus two accessory structures up to 2,000 sq. ft. Aggregate.
In summary, the following represents a comparison of standards for non-agricultural accessory
structures in rural areas:
City Maximum sq. ft. Allowed Remarks
Chanhassen 20% lot area (aggregate for all uses)
Cottage Grove 2160 sq. ft. CUP req.
Inver Grove Heights 1,000 sq. ft. Additional with CUP
Maple Grove 2,150 sq. ft. (ten acres or less) 10 ac. +1/4 of 1%
3,225 sq. ft. (20 acres min.) of additional land area
0
Lakeville 3% land area 13,068 sq. ft. max.
Prior Lake no restrictions No pole barns
Shakopee no restrictions
Woodbury 2,000 sq. ft. . :Five acres min.
CONCLUSION
Chanhassen, Lakeville, Prior Lake and Shakopee are either silent or.very permissive relative to
non-agricultural rural accessory structures. In contrast, Cottage Grove and Inver Grove Heights
g ry g g
are very restrictive and both require conditional use permits. Maple Grove and Woodbury are the
only cities with restrictions that resemble any approach existing or proposed in Rosemount.
In accordance with the direction provided at the April 9th meeting, the proposed ordinance has
been adjusted to expand the allowances for accessory structures in the Agriculture and Rural
Residential Districts for non-agricultural uses. The"stepped" approach is still used and the
architectural compatibility standards will still be required. Architectral compatibility is viewed as
the single most effective method of reasonably assuring quality while'utilizing the current methods
of plan review available with current resources. Screening vegetation or"out of sight"
approaches may seem to be a practical solution, but are inappropriate requirements for residential
applications that do not require site plan review even for principal structures.
is � • ( )
•
THE REMKUS FAMILY
13040 AKRON AVE.
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068
April 11 , 1996
City of Rosemount _
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount , Minnesota 55068
Attn: Richard Pearson
Assistant Planner
Dear Mr. Pearson:
As a result of comments that I heard at the Planning Commission
meeting on Tuesday night , I would like to offer the following thoughts:
1 ) If there is a concern with the size of any particular accessory
building getting too large, and thus causing public safety and/or
aesthetic concerns, I would think that limiting the size of any one
building would address this concern. I might suggest that the maximum
aggregate square footage on a lot of 10 to 20 acres might be 4,800
square feet , with no single building allowed to be larger than 2,400
square feet . This would increase the allowable aggregate lot coverage
to be more in line with that allowed on smaller lots, while eliminating
the concerns regarding excessively large structures.
2) I heard that there might be a concern with accessory buildings
being clustered together on a 10 to 20 acre lot , which would in effect
create both an aesthetic concern, as well as, the appearance that more
of the lot is being covered than is really the case. I believe that
this concern could be addressed by using the concept of setbacks. If
the zoning text were worded in such a manner that no two accessory
buildings larger than 1 ,000 square feet could be located closer than,
say, 100 feet of each other, I would think that this concern would be
adequately addressed .
3) During the discussion, I heard you to say that the new zoning
text language would preclude the construction of what is commonly
referred to as "pole barns. " Obviously, this would greatly increase
the cost of any building that might be constructed simply for cold
storage of equipment and supplies used by a resident for personal
purposes. I believe that this issue could adequately be addressed by
the use of screening and/or visibilty concepts. For example, if the
building were not visible from any public right-of-way what public
purpose would be served by making the structure appear to be a large
detached garage. Also, if the building were to be visible, but were
properly screened (by landscaping for example) so as to render the
the appearance of the building undeterminable, I would think that this
issue would become mute.
.+ n C
4) Finally, I would like to address the issue of accessory
buildings being used for "undesirable" purposes. I would think that
this issue could be easily controlled by the zoning of any particular
P property..
iece of Thus, if commercial operations are not allowed in
residential or agricultural areas, then such operations can be
controlled by the zoning code and building size would become a function
of lot size and not a tool for zoning enforcement . It just seems
unnessecary to use accessory building regulations to control property
uses.
I appreciate that some of my suggestions might increase
administrative burdens on your staff or other city personnel . And yet ,
I have always found it to be a rather unsatisfying argument that
something can not be done because it might take extra efforts to
accomplish it . I do not believe that anything I have suggested above
would violate any proper planning practices. But , they would allow
myself and my neighbors to enjoy the lifestyle that attracted us to
this area of Rosemount in the first place.
I hope that you have found my suggestions useful , and I am looking
forward to discussing them further with you, at your convenience.
Sincerely,
W !�
o n W. Rem us
CC: Greg and Beth Bergacker
13080 Akron Ave. , Rosemount
•
C
•
THE REMKUS FAMILY
13040 AKRON AVE.
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068
April 10, 1996
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount , Minnesota 55068
Attn: Richard Pearson
Assistant Planner
Dear Mr. Pearson:
As was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting last night ,
please accept this letter as our formal approval of a 60 day extension
to our zoning text amendement request . As before, it is our intent to
do everything reasonable to resolve this matter within the guidelines
of the city's rules and regulations.
Sincerely,
�� CYHQ
John W. Remkus J yce M. Remkus
CC: Greg and Beth Bergacker
13080 Akron Ave. , Rosemount
Regular Planning Commission Meccing Proceedings - —
.i April 9,1996
Page 3
Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: Shoe-
Corrigan. Motion passes 4-1.
Public Hearing: John & Joyce Remkus - Zoning Text Amendment
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony
regarding the zoning text amendment application of John and Joyce Remkus.
Assistant Planner Pearson related the background of this application and stated that this item was
previously continued from the March 26, 1996, Planning Commission meeting so that Staff could
prepare a draft amendment. Mr. Pearson then reviewed the proposed draft amendment stating that
accessory structures would be allowed based on an incremental system proportionate to land area
and that all references to Akron Avenue as a City division line had been removed.
John Remkus, the applicant, commented that, after reviewing the proposed amendment, he felt
penalized for owning too much land. He stated that it was not fair that a 2.5 acre parcel was allowed
1,000 sq. ft. of accessory buildings and a 10 acre parcel was only allowed 3,000 sq. ft. of accessory
buildings. Mr. Remkus recommended he be allowed 5,000 sq. ft. in accessory structures with a limit
of 2,500 sq. ft. per building. This would eliminate Staffs concern that someone could build a 5,000
sq. ft. building on their property. Mr. Remkus then explained the uses for the proposed accessory
structures, i.e. storing of hay and farming equipment, horses and storing of automobiles and parts.
Finally, he mentioned that the proposed building would not be visible from the road and stressed that
he really needs 5,000 sq. ft. of accessory buildings.
As there were no further comments from the audience, MOTION by Tentinger to close the public
hearing. Seconded by Shoe-Corrigan. Ayes: Shoe-Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger
and Droste. Nays: 0.
Staff responded to the Commission's request if a variance would be feasible in this matter to which
Staff responded that a hardship would be difficult to find in this matter.
Assistant Planner Pearson remarked that if the Commission was considering allowing more than
3,000 sq. ft. of accessory structures that they consider including enhanced standards for any buildings
constructed over this 3,000 sq. ft. limit. He mentioned that Staff felt that allowing over 3,000 sq. ft.
of accessory structures was not the intent for a rural residential use.
The Commission discussed at length the 3,000 sq. ft. limit and whether it was appropriate to extend
this limit. The Commission requested that Staff check with other cities in the area to see what their
policy is regarding accessory structures.
The Commission then discussed the possibility of continuing this matter until the next meeting to
allow Staff time to research this issue. Mr. Remkus stated that he was not opposed to continuing this
matter and extending the 60 day deadline for a decision to be made in this matter.
_ '�. n C
y
c s Regular Planning Commission Meeting Proceedings ,
. April 9,1996
Page 4
In summary, the Commissioners:
1. Requested that Staff contact other cities in the area to obtain their ordinances
regarding accessory structures.
2. Were_possibly in favor of increasing the 3,000 sq. ft. limit (would review at next
meeting after Staff researched thisitem further).
3. Were in favor of setback standards from the principal residence to the accessory
buildings to minimize locating all the accessory structures in one location.
4. Were in favor of limiting visibility of accessory structures from the road.
MOTION by Droste to continue discussion on this matter until April 23, 1996 to allow Staff time to
gather additional information on the subject of accessory structures and subject to the applicant
providing, in writing, his acceptance of extending the deadline in this matter for an additional 60
days. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: McDermott, DeBettignies, Tentinger, Droste and Shoe-
Corrigan. Nays: 0.
u 1 lic He, rin. : Ad It • •r 1 finance
Ch.• erson Droste opened the public hearing scheduled at this time to hear public testimony
regard the proposed Adult Use Ordinance. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of
Publicatio d Affidavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with the City.
Intern Lotter rel. ed to the Commission that the adult use moratorium would eon the next City
Council agenda for consideration. He stated that the moratorium would be extended until July 4,
1996. Pursuant to the",ommission's request, Mr. Lotter stated that Staaffprepared a color map
showing the difference be veen a 500 and 1,000 foot buffer and ppossible areas where adult uses
could locate..Mr. Lotter exp sed his concern that a 1,000 foot buffer was too restrictive and did
not leave an adequate amount o d for potential adult yse businesses. He recommended a 500 foot
buffer to help avoid potential lawsu in the future.
The Commissioners discussed the advanta s and/disadvantages between a 500 and 1,000 foot
buffer. A majority of the Commissioners felt,t t a 1,000 foot buffer was necessary for public uses
such as churches, parks and schools and.a`500 foot buffer should be required for residential uses.
comments from the audience, MOTIO DeBettignies to close the public hearing.
There being no �Y P g
Seconded by Droste. Ayes:DeBettignies, Tentinger, Drostte; Shoe-Corrigan and McDermott. Nays:
O.
Dr a to recommend to the City Council an ordinance th t allows adult uses in a new
MOTION by qs ty
overlay district/Within� the General Industrial Zone of the City Zoning Ord naa;nnce subject to the
following:Ca) a 500 foot buffer from structure to structure for residential use�and (b) a 1,000 foot
buffer om structure to structure for public uses such as churches, parks and schools. Seconded by
Te nger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe-Corrigan and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. McDermott
stained.
.: w _ LILYy Vl
• ecutive Summary for Action
• Planning Commission:
rch 26. 1996 '
Agenda Item: Zoning Text Amendment Requested By Ag enda Section:
John Renikus, 13040 Akron Avenue — Public Hearing
Prepared By: Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner
Agenda No: 7A.
Attachments: Section 7.2 (accessory buildings) Approved By:.
Ordinance excerpt, Correspondence
PROPOSAL a zoning text amendment that will allow
Mr. John Remkus, 13040 Akron Avenue is requesting ve him the ability to
him to legitimize a shed that was constructed without a permit and also giveriirure strict.
construct additional sheds (or accessory buildings) on his property in the
e consists of approximately 10 acres and is essentially a rural residential use as
The property s
permitted in the Agriculture District. A large e hed of 2400 sq. ft. was previously permitted on
the property which exhausted the allowance for such structures for non agricultural cl uses f Ordinance less
has
than twenty acres in the Agriculture District east of location:
a variety of standards for accessory structures dependant upon zoning district
Agriculture (less than 20 acres and west of Akron Avenue) permits 1200 sq. ft. (aggregate)
gn permits 2400 sq. ft. (aggregate)
Agriculture (less than 20 acres and east of Akron Avenue) � sq. ft. (aggregate)
Rural Residential
R-1 Single Family detached Res., R-2 S.F. attached Res 1000 sq. ft. (aggregate)
R-3 and R-4 Multiple Family Residential treats accessory structures the same as principal
structures.
DISCUSSION
The standards for residential and rural residential uses are generally consistent with other cities
in Dakota County. The 1000 and 1200 sq. ft. standards are found in many o tA�n Avenue to
land use distinctions. The ability for non agricultural (residential) uses construct up to 2400 sq. ft. (aggregate) was apparently an allowance made that acknowledges
allowable residential densities that are half of that allowed of Rural l Residential ntial District as
well as the very small inventory of residential uses consisting
agricultural land may be a good reason to revisit
The increasing amount of pressure to subdivide � ssible to plat a 2.5 acre lot in the
the accessory structure standards. Currently, it is po P r ten acres. Thus,
the occupant of a 2.5 acre lot in the Agriculture to
Agriculture District if the density remains no more that one dwelling unit
2400 1 sq ft. for
culture District is allowed up
accessory structures (aggregate) in contrast to a Rural Residential District occup ant of a similar
lot but with a density of one per five who is limited to 1200 sq. ft.
In the opinion of Staff, there may be circumstances that should permit an owAnter of tense�eof
land or more to exceed the 2400 sq. ft. limitation for accessory structures.
2400 sq. ft. seems excessive for a 2.5 acre lot that is possible in the Agriculture I does District. The
2400 sq. ft. is not a threshold in the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
3000 sq. ft. as the maximw' square footage allowed without fire 'ration or other measures
• necessary for the type of b/. .tings typically involved which are cd:tiered "U" occupancy.
•
If the Planning Commission is inclined to recommend an amendment, then Staff would suggest
a gradient of standards such as:
Lot or parcel size Maximum Area Allowed for Accessory Structures (aggregate)
Less than 2.5 acres 1000 sq. ft.
2.5 to 5 acres 1200 sq. ft.
5 to 10 acres 2400 sq. ft.
more than ten acres 3000 sq. ft.
•ne of the I rim• concerns in the •ast re . s' .cce so a cture in the rural or a. 'cul re
districts was the proliferati•n of objectionable non conforming commercial or industrial uses
in the Agriculture and Rural Residential Districts without sewer and water. Aesthetic treatment
requirements and strict enforcement of the outdoor storage standards may be an alternate
strategy for regulating the undesirable impacts of such uses.
Planning Commission is asked to open the public hearing and continue the hearing regarding the
request until April 9, 1996. Planning Staff will prepare a draft amendment based upon the
direction provided by the Planing Commission. The "sixty day" law requires that a decision
must be made for approval or denial within sixty days of the receipt of an application without
extension by mutual consent. Action by the City Council on May 7, 1996 should satisfy the
requirement.
Recommen ded Action: Open the public hearing and continue action until 7:00 p.m.
April 9, 1996
Council Action:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Busho
Councilmembers Anderson
Carroll
Edwards
Wippermann
FROM: Rick Pearson, Assistant Planne
DATE: May 3, 1996
RE: Item 6e Accessory Structure Comparison
The attached three pages are copies of photographs of various accessory structures intended to
illustrate the variations in size. Most of the structures are permitted agricultural structures which
are exempt from aesthetic treatment requirements. I hope this comparison will be of assistance in
the discussion relative to the proposed text amendment.
=
•
-
-.--, '-'17:.,...,•,,4,4:; ;,=4:6'2,-'-"--:.-.. '...•-•-1,i',..., -..;,: i',-,....,---..-- .. - ,,. - - .
. . ,,;:.--,..,•- •--4,;-•.',;‘;.:4:- .-:-., -;;'":4,---*':-4--::..:•1":." "'i=1,i1:2"-344 -ii.';' ,',--•1`'-- ' ' '.-'.' ' - • . ' - .
- .,,,,,..--••,:-1,•,-..-4:_-:,-,-- • •:-' ' -4•`„:. 4 1,-''• I:, , -:,,,x..,:::$:.-..:,." , ;. ,
Claw,.• ' _ ''. ...,".`.-.,;t.'1,'.,i-=';11,-;:',,--,..I-t, L ' . Lig. x....`.'1, At 1.••AIX, * -,i ',i,..,7' - ' ,e• .t-'',
'-- ,- .a. 7,414.,:,...:„-;,...,.--.-7,..;.,,,,,,t,----s.„-:„...,_ .. ,-..-- , ...ZN ',ar' ,r, i,.-,',._:„ - - - •' "
,-, "7,-"w ---'_L:,.,_-_,,,,,,,,tioii,A-------- --. • :',-•---441?. ,', . • ___,„-- .
t - ,
.. .. .„. v.., ...
- t8,..,,-..„.•c.
• i, Coo 5Q,F."-r,
. .
. ,. . , .... „
. .... _.,.
_ .. . .
: 'i0,7,-, • : . .
. . _
1.. ,
. .
. _
_ .
__ ..
: ,. .• -._. .
_ _.• --- -
... .... .... _. . ..,.. _ . ..,.. .•• __
.
. . ..:. , ,. - •::•• - _ .••• ,_
. _ • ,- -
: VV ____........___,
---
.
. — .0.----- 44,41ww Ii-
VV ,•
_
-
t
awilhib..-- N i".i '•', ,-i-..:-.
. .
_ . .._ . .... ..,.
-
.."1"41,111111111,-•
,. t.
. ,
, -
12.oc)' SO- - FT i•-••.'c,-,._.---..• - . . ._ •• „ V. ,,,.....-.-: •
i
•,..„... ,.
VVVVV .. . -• - - ,..i, ::'
. , , , . _i.;•,.: ,... •-
-
- • ....
•
•
•
IV . 1 •• 1 .
• I •
,. ., •-, •••
. . . '
.7. ,. ..
. —
. .
•
..•- -
, • - , • • ..
. -
• .
• 3 • J..)
-.- .• . -__ , .. . ... -_
. ,
. .
...L. -
•
. .
. .
• .
._
• .
.__
•
_ _-
_. ---
- -•-• - . ..„„., . --
. ' . -- " - - '' . ,••.--.1 .,-.1,74.-v'V,
,;': . 'ibi•t-•'F'44?..;::.•:::',..!7:-;.:,. •'-'
_____... -,.:,,',...-.4'.':1!"-=.441.4.'-5-t2f-,--**-0.4-'14=',.:44-47-1..ftlt-I'-'"'!..,',Int-.4fr''.,,,,.'.f.,..r.Iitti,..,'"'.,••••=-"'r''''„,:.‘,..,...,- ...".. . ._
. ' '-%."''''-`'.; . '' . -;;."'''' 'fr.'...1-':w ''f`v"47',-::--:f."'::'-.4•.`::;; -:='!.'''''`V .„.17::- ,,,, c.14--‘r;„, ' - .,--.--.:-.-- ,. ,; .„
• '' - '•- cla,',--•-•.;;', -:-.. ,-- .••.-1. --,..„?•ki.-.'';'44;ii.: -",„:„:-/,--,::,'L' <.2 -,..,%i„;4, .4\
'''''''''r.7.-:;',"---"',-.; .''';' k .--,,:f.„,-,•.,,f,r.::,,,„„;.„:„-• •
,-,1,,,.„'„':',,„0,... ,,... ,. 'lit,1410..-i-.1.-,......,-.,,,,,--,-„;,-..-....-,' --!•.
.. .-_,....-.-....-4„,7'•:.,Zific.-I•-- „_',' '„ ?,--f.,'i", ':-'-#1-4*- . -
... k .fr . .. . ii'. 14rarlik. 11WAlit■-7-..**'-',.;:r:''. .. - - -... ._
-.1-3,',A.F.. „t•,,. .•',' ', .,!1,0•,-;...,,,..• • ...
r."'"r.gt•-•,'
• •
• ''-:. ...;0•1.-f4s.';'•'•••‘--- ' ..'„a ir!.i..'• ':..71.,..-°
••••°116"ill A, ,
- •'WI,.."-••.'::::%•-•• . .4:14. . :',:t. t -
/1 90 30. FT:
, -
. , .
. ,-..., ....f..-: ' ,-
1
.- - .. -tr.:4 4.06-;,te , fkiii;:ke••._ • ' -'4 ,- —
___ - •
. . . y
•
..,. .. •_.-1.,--' •. j''.,'''N'Q."'.11%.'•-•
..‘
„_..._ .
, ,..,. . __-•
• . . _..
•
...--,...........•••• -.. ,
- -
. • --,.,,- ..
. .-
,
.
..... ••• ••.•••••, ' -......._ . • --.. . -
....., . ... .„. , •
.
,.
• • ' "'',••.:•••••'•:i4,101ri?"1".ii). 4.Y.'"*%1 n .-.^. .,•...';:''..•-*r .'" .•. .. -
, -
_
_ -
.,. .
4;
er^,
' • ,. •
•
- • . •
4.:• :
•
4.• ieL
• ' 4- Z 00 0 5a. FT.
_ .
I Li ; ;;; —
2 40 0 F7-
t
I
- -
• "3
2 400 Sc FT
I i
- - •
. -
3, 000 sq. FT.
■
41111XP
**. ,
.v•
•
7C7 Scz,FT:
■
ct - -
_ -