Loading...
6.11. SR 05-16-2005 Item :/1= 6. 11. MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor and City C~iI Michele MCPherso~irector of Planning TO: DATE: May 16, 2005 SUBJECT: Fabric Accessory Structures Attachments . November 26, 2002 memo to the Planning Commission regarding Accessory Structures . October 21,2002 City Council Meeting Minutes . November 26, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Request The City Council is asked to provide direction to staff regarding fabric accessory structures in the R1a Single Family and A1 Agricultural Conservation districts. Background This item was last discussed by the City Council in 2002 when an ordinance amendment clarifying appropriate materials for accessory structures was considered and approved. Staff had prepared two options for the Planning Commission to consider, including allowing fabric structures in the larger lot districts and the Planning Commission's recommendation was that fabric structures should not be allowed anywhere within the residential districts within the City of Elk River. At that time, former Councilmember Tveite indicated that he felt fabric accessory structures should be allowed in agricultural areas. Staff has now been approached by a local farmer who has purchased a fabric accessory structure for the purpose of storing hay on his farm. Currently, the ordinance does not allow this type of structure. With appropriate conditions, it may be appropriate to allow fabric accessory structures within the large lot or agricultural zoning districts. Examples of such conditions include: a minimum lot size of five acres, obtaining a building permit, maintaining the appropriate building setbacks, used for storage of animals or animal feed, and removal of the structure if the site were developed into smaller lots. Planning Department Mission: the orderly development of a livable and sustainable Elk River community. Memo to the Mayor and City Council May 16, 2005 Page 2 Request Staff requests the Council provide direction whether an ordinance amendment should be processed to allow fabric accessory structures in the R1a Single Family and A1 Agricultural Districts. S:\PLANNING\Michele McPherson\CCREPRTS\OS16 05 fabric structures.doc FILE COpy . Item #5.5 MEMORANDUM FROM: Planning Commission Chris Leeseberg, Planner Q. November 26, 2002 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Case No. OA 02-06 Request by City of Elk River to amend Section 900.20 of the Zoning Code relating to Accessory Structures Request The Planning Commission is asked to consider an amendment to the Accessory Structure portion of the Ordinance. Attachments . Images of canvas accessory structures . Existing Ordinance Language . Option A . Option B Overview This amendment request has two parts. First, the current ordinance uses the terminology "metal construction! exterior" pertaining to building finishes. This was in reaction to galvanized corrugated metal building systems and how that system was not desired. With the advent of pre-finished metal pole shed construction and metal lap siding, staff feels that this terminology needs to be further clarified. Second, staff has received a complaint call from a resident that their neighbor's canvas accessory structure had blow into their yard. After this complaint was brought to the attention of staff, staff began to analyze how these structures could be allowed and regulated or even if they should be allowed. They are used as protection for boats and vehicles from the winter elements. . y q 0 3 ~ 11:.1. Cnmm;.mon ~~2 Page 2 Analysis The current ordinance uses the terminology "metal construction! exterior" pertaining to exterior building finishes. Staff has included two new definitions related to metal finishes on accessory buildings. This is to help clarify the difference between typical metal pole barn construction versus metal lap siding which is typical on many residential homes. The purpose is to separate out the two types of metal construction finishes and to clarify what will be acceptable metal exterior products. The current ordinance does not allow for any type of membrane (canvas) accessory structures. Upon reviewing the current ordinance and the building code, it was found that the currently available canvas structures cannot meet the wind and snow loads required by the building code. St:a:ff called seven different commercial businesses in Elk River and surrounding communities to see if they carry this type of product and if they met any wind or snow loads. Upon contacting them, only two businesses carried them and neither met the required loads. Currently accessory structures that are less than 120 square feet do not require a building permit. Once a structure exceeds this square footage, it requires a building permit and it must meet all applicable building codes. The average size of the accessory structures was found to be about 200 square feet, which would place them in a category to require a permit and meet all applicable building codes. From the information given to staff by local businesses, these structures do not meet the code. According to Appendix Chapter 31 of the Uniform Building Code, membrane structures erected less than 180 days shall comply with applicable provisions of the Fire Code. This states that if it is a temporary structure, it must still meet fire code, which the locally available structures do not appear to do so. Again, if the structure is greater than 120 square feet, it requires a building permit and must meet all applicable building codes. Staff has prepared two options to regulate these types of accessory structures. Option A allows them only in the A1 and R1a districts year round and if they exceed 120 square feet, they must meet all applicable building codes. . Option B allows them only in the A1 and R1a districts but only as a temporary structure not to exceed 180 days in a calendar year. Again, in Option B, if they exceed 120 square feet they must meet all applicable building codes. Option B will create enforcement problems, as it will be difficult to track. these temporary structures to insure they are removed after their allowed time frame. This topic was presented to the City Council at their November 18th, 2002 meeting and they gave the direction of exploring them as temporary structures. S:\PLANNING\Case FiIes\OA 02-06 Accessory Struc:tUreS\OA 02-06.DOC Memo to Planning Cnmm;"^.;on November 26, 2002 Page 3 Recommendation Staff is recommending that the Plannin~ Commission recommend approval of the language pertaining to the Metal Panel Siding and Metal Lap Siding. (The non shaded text in Option A and Option B) Staff is asking the Planning Commission for direction of fabric accessory structures. Should they be allowed year round or should they be limited to a specific time frame or there is always a third option of not allowing them at all. (The shaded text in Option A and Option B) S:\PLANNING\Case Files\OA 02-06 Accessory St:ructures\OA 02-06.DOC OPTION A E. Accessoty structures not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet in floor area.may be permitted in any zOne and may be finished with. metal panel siding, wood, vinyl lap siding, metal lap siding, and! or masonty so long as the structures comply with the required minimum setbacks and the structures are anchored to the ground in compliance with. all applicable building codes. F. On lots less than two and one half (2 1/2) acres in the R1b, R1c, R1d or R1e districts, no detached accessOty structures greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be finished with metal panel siding. In the Al and R1a districts, and on two and one half (2 1/2) acres or greater in the R1b, R1c, R1d or R1e districts, accessoty structures may be finished with. metal I si' wood,' lla sidin metalla si' and! or masomy. roofing material on any accessoty structure. G. In any zone, all metal finishes/coverings shall be factoty pre-finished. In all zones, except A1, galvanized corrugated panels shall not be allowed. All accessoty structures greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall require a building permit and comply with. all applicable building codes. DefInitions: Metal Panel Siding: Metal finishes/coverings that are applied to the exterior of walls and roofs which are greater than eight (8) inches in width. Metal Lap Siding: Metal finishes/coverings that are applied to the exterior of walls and roofs which are eight (8) inches or less in width. OPTION B E. Accessory stru.ctures not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet in floor area may be permitted in any zone and may be finished with metal panel sirline, wood, vinyl lap siding, metal lap siding. and/or masonry so long as the stru.ctures comply with the required minirrnlO"l setbacks and ~ stru.ctures are anchored to the ground in compliance with all applicable building codes. F. On lots less than two and one half (2 1/2) acres in the Rib, Rlc, Rid or Rle districts, no detached accessory stru.ctures greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be finished with metal panel sirlinf'. In the Ai and Ria districts, and on two and on~ half (2 1/2) acres or greater in the Rib, Rlc, Rid or Rle districts, accessory structures may be finished with metal panel sieling. wood, vinyl lap siding, metal lap sieling. and/or masonry. Metal panel siding shall be allowed as a roofing material on any accessory structure. G. In.a.ny zone, all metal finishesl coverings shall be factory pre-finished. In all zones, except Ai, galvanized corrugated panels shall not be allowed. All accessory stru.ctures greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet: shall require a building permit and comply with all applicable . buildin,g codes. .' . Definitions: Metal Panel Sirlin~ Metal finishesl coverings that are applied to the exterior of walls and roofs which are greater than eight (8) inches in width. Metal Lap Sirlinf: Metal finishesl coverings that are applied to the exterior of walls and roofs which are eight (8) inches or less in width. City Council Minutes October 21, 2002 Page 12 2. NO TREES GREATER mAN FOUR INCHES IN DIAMETER SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE BLUFF AREA. 3. A CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY OF THE SECOND STORY OF THE ADDmON MAY NECESSITATE THE NEED FOR AN ELEVATOR OR OTHER ADA ACCESS PROVISION. 4. ALL COMMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE MET. 5. THE ADDmON SHALL COMPLY WIlli THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES. COUNCllMEMBER TVEITE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 7.1. City Administrator Review Councilmember Dietz stated that Council should have received in the mail some sample forms that would assist in the review of the City Administrator. The Council agreed that the forms looked helpful and that the department heads and the Council should fill out these forms for the review process. 7.2. Canvas/Plastic Accessory Structures Director of Planning Michele McPherson stated that temporary canvas structures have been appearing around the city. Staff is looking for direction from Council on how to regulate these types of structures. She stated that the structures do meet the definition of a structure under the building code. She stated that Council could either: 1) disallow the structures; 2) ignore the structures; or 3) regulate the structures under Building Code Appendix Chapter 31. Ms. McPherson explained some of the issues with these types of structures, such as aesthetics, anchoring, snow loads, safety, setback requirements, etc. Councilmember Tveite stated that he believes these types of structures should be allowed in agricultural areas. The Council recommended that staff pursue option 3, regulation of the structures under the Building Code, due to aesthetic and code concerns. 7.3. Resolution Amendments City Administrator Pat Klaers stated that the Council approved two resolutions at the October 14, 2002, Council meeting. The resolutions were for" Accepting, Supporting, and Adopting... " the Mn/DOT plaD.s for Highway 10 and for Highway 169/101. Mr. Klaers stated that the Council should accept and support the plans but not adopt them and that the "adopting" portion shoUld be deleted from the title of each of these resolutions. Planning G>mmission Minutes November 26, 2002 Page 4 5.4. Request by at;}' of Elk River for Recodification of Chapter 900 "Zoning" of the Code of OrrIin:mces~ Public Hearing - Case No. OA 02-05 Staff report by Michele McPherson. The Planning Commission is asked to recommend that Chapter 900 entitled "Zoning" be recodified as part of the recodification of the aty Code. Ms. McPherson explained that there have been no significant changes to the aty Code since it was adopted in 1980-1981. She provided an overview of the changes and newfonnat. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RECODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 900 OF THE CITY CODE ENTITLED "ZONING", CASE NO. OA 02-05. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5.5. Reqpest by the at;}' of Elk River to Amend Section 900.20 Regarding Regp1ation of AccessoIY Structures. Public Hearing -. Case No. OA 02-06 Staff report by Chris Leeseberg. The Planning Commission is asked to consider an amendment to the Accessory Structure portion of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed Option A and Option B for the Commission. Chair Pederson asked if the plastic "snap-together" sheds will be considered, as well Mr. Leeseberg stated that he will check into this type of construction material. Commissioner Franz asked that residential PUD's be added to the zoning districts listed in proposed ordinance. He asked how tents are handled, such as the one used at Furniture and Things for sales. Mr. Leeseberg stated that these are handled under the General Planning Permit process. Commissioner Franz then asked if there are "any permits required for tents used for parties such as weddings and graduations. Ms. McPherson stated no, but that these types of tents are engineered and flame retardant, and are usually professionally installed by the tent or rental company. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Mr. Lindberg, 816 Jackson Avenue, stated that he lives next door to a propenywith a 40 foot by 10-foot canvas shelter which is located 6 inches from his property line. Mr. Lindberg explained that during a recent strong wind, the structure blew into his yard. Mr. Lindberg stated that he felt the structures are a safety hazard and create a noise issue when the qmvas is flapping in the wind. He felt that 180 days is too long for the structures to be allowed. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Discussion followed regarding the metal panel siding. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the proposed metal panel siding and metal lap siding language was acceptable. Chair Pederson stated that he did not feel that fabric accessory structures were acceptable in residential areas. He also had concerns regarding safety, snow and wind loads. He felt if Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 Page 5 theywere only allowed on larger lots in the A1 and Rla Districts, theywould be somewhat shielded from public view. Commissioner Anderson stated he was not in favor of allowing the structures, and would only consider them in the larger lot size areas. Commissioner Ropp questioned why the structures would be allowed in any area, if they are a safety hazard.. Commissioner Jenson asked it they must meet building code. Mr. Leeseberg stated yes. Ms. McPherson stated that if the structures were to be up for more than 180 days, they would need to comply with the Building Code. If theywere up less than 180 days, they would only need to comply with the Fire Code. She noted that setback requirements would be applied and the structures would be included in the total accessory structure area allowed.. Chair Pederson suggested an Option C which would be not to allow the st:ru,ctures at all, and to include the plastic/vinyl panel systems, as well Commissioner Ropp concurred, stating that these types of stmctures have a limited life and will deteriorate relatively quickly. Discussion followed regarding the fairground canvas structure and greenhouses. Commissioner Offerman expressed concern for allowing the structures for 180 days in any district. Commissioner Jenson suggested adjusting the time period.. Discussion followed regarding enforcement issues in regulating time periods. Commissioner Offerman suggested that party tents be restricted to a time period. Ms. McPherson suggested five days. Gty Attorney Peter Beck suggested that companies in this business be contacted to help with the language. . Commissioner Franz suggested that structures over 120 square feet must abide by the building code and if they are under 120 square feet they only be allowed under certain criteria. Ms. McPherson stated that structures under 120 square feet are not regulated by the City. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE METAL PANEL SIDING AND METAL LAP SIDING; AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF OPTION B REGARDING FABRIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 1. INCLUDE ALL POSSIBLE RESIDENTIAL ZONES SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL PUDS AND CLUSTER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE R1A AND Ai ZONING DISTRICTS. 2. STRIKE SECTION H COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.