Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-19 PACKET 08.A.REQl1EST OF CITY COUhICIL ,4C760fJ COUPJCIL AGEP�DA iVIEETING IT # DATE 8/19/98 • A • PF2EPARED BY Community Development Kim Linciquist ORIGINATINCs DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR .�«�g.����..�.s..�...�.�«�s.ffi�....�.��..«.�a��.� COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST: Adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 28, Zoning Ordinance of the City Code concerning the requirement for accessory structures. , � . , � . ; � s . � ADVfSORY COMMISSION ACTION: DATE � PLANNING 7l27/98 ❑ PUBLIC SRFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ SUPPORTlNG DOCUtJIENTS: REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N/A ACTUALAMOUNT APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Iy� • � . . . e . _ .. -. : •: ■ ' • •'. ►� �-� • � . � • ' � ), �, � ' ' • �' � DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � OTHER: Excerpt from unapproved minutes of July 27, 1998, Planning Commission Meeting ADMINISTRATORS COMMEN7e• �ity Administraf�r ` c� � �ate �k����..��e�$�k�.���.����.«.g��>�.���kA��.�*�..� co��csL Ac �,a��r�: ❑ �,���ov�� ❑ ���i�� ❑ t�7�E� F:IGRGU6'S�PIAPdNING\9998\CIYYCOUP�\TA acc s4ructures cover.doc MEMORANDUM T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schraeder, City Administrator FROM: John M. Burbank, Associate Planner DATE: August 13, 1998 RE: Accessory Structure Text Amendment introduction After numerous workshops and a formai pubiic hearing, the Planning Commission is forwarding an ordinance amendment for the accessory structure standards for aII zoning districts. This item has been thoroughiy reviewed and discussed and should enable better regulation of accessory structures in the City. Discussion The initial instigation of the amendment for this section of the zoning ordinance was the creation of the new Urban Reserve and Residential zoning districts. The current accessory structure regulations do not have any standards established for these new districts. As the Planning commission began workshop discussions about the proposed text amendment, several other issues were also identified. The first issue was that the maximum allowable square footage within the urban areas of town is excessive. This statement is especially true when compared to a survey of permitted sizes in other Twin Cities comrnunities. The proposed ordinance amendments reduce the maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures between 20 to 50 percent depending on the zoning district. An additional study of buiiding permits issued in the last 10 years showed that the proposed permitted sizes would not create a significant number of non-conformities. The second item was that the maximum size in the rural areas is too restrictive, especially for properties that are zoned R3 and R4. The majority of recent variance requests in the rural area averaged less than 500 square feet in excess of what is permitted. The new text increases the aliowable square footages on rural properties and treats R3 and R4 properties that are over three acres the same. The third problem identified with the current standards is that the maximum struc4ure heights did not coincide with the permitted footprints. On larger permitted buildings, certain roof pitches are needed to meet snow loads. The size limits also did not meet current roof pitch building trends. The proposed te� addresses these issues also. Accessory S4ructure Text Amendment August 13, 1998 Page 2 The final major change in the text was the creation of a conditionai use permit process that would allow for applicants to exceed the established building size and height. This language was needed to give the City some flexibility to approve or deny a non- standard building permit. Currently, this is accomplished by variance only. The Council will find other minor changes to the accessory structure regulations as well as reformatting of the text. As usual, the shaded areas depict the new verbiage and strikeouts depicting items deleted. Recommendation Adopt tne draft ordinance as submitted. Ordinance No. XXX AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTfAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CHAPTER 28, ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. "The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota° shall be amended by amending Chapter 28, Section 28-3 by adding and revising the following to the list of definitions: Sec. 28-3. Rules of cnnstruction and definitions. ...a•.,��e �., Ftie .,r�v���g-g� SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. "The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota" shail be amended by amending Chapter 28, Section 21 to read as follows: Sec. 28-21. Resident+al I�ccessorv bu+ld+aasaad structures. (n aii zon�r�g di�tr��tsr acr.tiss�ry stru�tures: , n r� o o i o 0 o a o � o G...,:+ o �����jg��jgtg shall be subject to the following � � jSeCt`4ilYf�r�C�, Sta1'�t3�[d5: ��� ��CtS�I'11C��17C! lJ��l'.m���a���ra � � Accessorv use. A use stsster�arity incidental and subordinate to the principal use or building and located on the same lot therewith. in no case shall such accessory use dominate in area, extent, or purpose of the principal Iav�fiui use or building. Ordinance No. XXX Page 3 Table 2 Table 3 �d� H�igh#;<�leigt� of a�cesscs:ry struCtures shait 6e determined by th� faltowing t�ble �'i'a61e �);: Ordinance No. XXX Page 4 _ ............ .. ... _ _._........... �(�} No accessory �#CUe�Ur$s. �ildi� shali be constructed on any fesideaEiaNy ze�ed I Ot •,• °•,•• o..� ... o o i.,� .,,e�u..,. �he .��rt..;t•,. ,.s ��.,..:.. t� ��i ��r� prior to the time of construction of the principai structure to which it is accessory uniess the buiiding is accessory to the on-going agricuitural land use. (4) No tent, trailer, camper, motor home or accessory buiiding shall at any time be used as an occupied buiiding. (5) The required setback of accessory buiidings or structures from the principa! structure shall be determined by the building code as adopted by the city. �e) Fs� Miscelianeous requirements for accessorv structures. (3) No accessory �#fuCtut�e �ildi�g shail be located nearer the front lot line than is the Ordinance No. XXX Page 5 (1j Four hundred forty (440) gross square feet of garage space per dweliing unit is required for single-family homes constructed or relocated after the adoption of the ordinance codified in this section, with the foilowing exception: A minimum of one hundred (100) square foot storage shed per dweiling unit is required and shaii be constructed for licensed manufactured home parks in the Cottage Grove Estates subdivision and licensed manufactured homes in Outiet A of Cottage Grove Estates Addition. This shall not prohibit construction of a garage so Iong as the storage shed does not exceed one hundred sixty square feet. (2) Two hundred forty (240) gross square feet of garage space per dwelling unit is required for attached dweilings constructed or relocated after the adoption of the ordinance codified in this section. (Ord. No. 248, Sec.4; Ord No. 291, Sec. 1; Ord. No. 317, Sec. 3; Ord, No. 318, Sec. 1; Ord. No. 356, Sec. 1; Ord. No. 410, Sec. 2; Ord. No. 470, Sec. 3; Ord. No. 508, Sec. 1; Ord. No. 528, Sec. 2; Ord. No. 533, Sec. 1; Ord. No. 588, Sec. 1.) SECTION 3. EFFF CTI`J E DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and pub� �a�:on according to law. Passed unanimousl, this 19th day of August, 1998. John D. Denzer, Mayor Attest: Caron t'.�. St� �:r;sky, �City Clerk (fj � Garaqe requirements in residential alI districts (R-I-t#re��-�-6). EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF JULY 27, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CASE TA98-20 The City of Cottage Grove has filed an application for a Zoning Text Amendment to amend Chapter 28, Section 21{a)(b)(c) to revise the established criteria relating to detached accessory structures in all zoning districts. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended that the amendment be forwarded to the City Councii for approval. Kieven suggested that Table 1 be ciarified to indicate that it means total square footage for aii accessory buiidings on the property. He aiso asked for ciarification on Section 21(3)(e). Burbank explained that if an application was submitted in excess of what is allowed by ordinance, the only action the zoning administrator could take was to tum down the application. This ordinance would allow residents the opportunity by the conditional use permit process to make their case on why they need to vary from the ordinance. Auge opened the pubiic hearing. Stan Waidelich, 7630 — 113th Street, asked if tne 40 percent increase is over the 2,500 square feet. Lindquist answered yes. Ed Stitt, 7675 — 113th Street, asked a question about Tabie 2, Zone R-3, regarding constructing a garage or pole barn behind the principal structure. He wondered if there was a variance process for those houses that have large front setbacks. S�rbank responded that the Planning Commission previously discussed that issu2, as the request to construct an accessory structure in front of the principal structure is one of the most frequent variance requests. Under the proposed ordinance, it can be done if the property consists of more than five acres. Otherwise, it wili be treated on a case-by-case basis and will require a variance. Pat Owen, 7965 —110th Street South, stated that they appiied to construct another garage on their property and were turned down because they already had one building. She also asked why they couldn't have a pole shed as a neighbor on the same side of the street has one or why they can't make one building bigger. Burbank responded that the property is in the R-3 zoning district and the maximum detached accessory structure square footage allowable under the current ordinance is 1,520 square feet. in addition, there can only be in one accessory structure. He further stated that pole structures are only permitted within the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. He stated that one of the issues brought up after this te� amendment was written was to aliow pole-type construction on properties that are outside the MUSA in the R-3 and R-4 districts. The Commission needs to discuss the issue of pole- type construction. Lindquist stated that aesthetics is the main issue staff is trying to address, not the construction of pole barns. The Commission discussed the aesthetics portion of the ordinance. Excerpt from Unapproved Minutes of July 27, 1998 Pianning Commission Meeting Page 2 Owen asked why residents in the area around tiadley and Grange are allowed to have two outside unattached garages and she can't on her four acres out in the country. Owen then asked that staff reconsider her permit for a block garage that will be constructed in a similar fashion to the rest of the buildings on her property. Auge asked for ciarification on why the application was turned down. Owen responded that they have two outside buildings now and need to enlarge one. Their one-and-a-haif car garage was built in 1949 and their three-car garage was built in 1970. They would like to repiace one of their garages with a larger building to allow for more storage. Burbank stated that under current ordinance criteria, that would not be allowed. Auge stated that the Commission could not consider her request at this time and that the current ordinance does not allow her request. The issue being considered tonight is what rules should appiy in the future to accessory struct�res. Owen asked when the new language would take etfect. Auge answered that the Pianning Commission needed to reach agreement, make a recommendation to the City Councii, and then the Council has to adopt it. After being published, it then becomes a city ordinance. Owen asked how long that process would take. Lindquist stated that if action were taken that night, it would go before the Council at their August 19 meeting and be published shortly thereafter. If the new ordinance were adopted, Owen couid proceed with her plans for another accessory structure. Kleven asked for clarification about the misceilaneous requirements, particularly (a), which talks about "adequate setback, screening, or topography changes that buffer the proposed structure from adjacent public roadways or adjacent properties." Lindquist answered that it is somewhat subjective and allows the Council to approve or deny a request for an oversized structure. Kleven asked if this means that a variance isn't needed to get a permit if those criteria are met. Lindquist responded that this provision is oniy related to oversized accessory structures and a variance would still be needed. Floyd Ott, 11865 Point Douglas, stated that pole barns could look great from the outside and structurally they are as strong as a stick building. He stated that the city should be more concerned with how a building looks from the exterior than how it is structured as long as it is a stable building. Auge asked if anyone e/se wished to address the Commission. No one did. The public hearing was c/osed. Kleven stated that he also thinks that pole barns can be very effective structures, as long as the Commission can control the aesthetics of the building materiais. Kleven made a motion to approve fhe text amendment wifh the clarifications discussed. Rice seconded. Motion passed unanimausly.