My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2015
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:22:35 AM
Creation date
3/9/2015 8:53:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/05/2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
251
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning Commission 5. 4. <br />Meeting Date: 03/05/2015 <br />By: Chris Anderson, Community <br />Development <br />Information <br />Title: <br />PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Ordinance #15-06 to Amend City Code Sections 117-111 (R-1 Residential District) <br />and 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings) <br />Purpose/Background: <br />On January 24th of this year, the 2015 Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) went into effect. There were several <br />code changes that occurred with the 2015 MSBC that are prompting this proposed Ordinance Amendment. <br />Specifically, the thresholds triggering a building permit for detached accessory buildings and fences have increased <br />and thus, the standards within Zoning Code need to be updated to ensure that there is not contradictory language <br />between the two codes. The proposed amendments are to City Code Sections 117-111 (R-1 Residential District) and <br />117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings). <br />Notification: <br />The Public Hearing was published in the Anoka County UnionHerald. <br />Observations/Alternatives: <br />Presently, City Code states that all detached accessory buildings greater than 120 square feet in floor area require a <br />building permit, which aligned with the standards of the 2007 MSBC (the edition in effect prior to January 24, <br />2015). Also, City Code states that all fences greater than six (6) feet in height require a building permit. <br />Additionally, City Code states that all detached accessory buildings 120 square feet or less in floor area and all <br />fences six (6) feet or less in height require a zoning permit. The 2015 MSBC, however, now requires a building <br />permit for detached accessory buildings greater than 200 square feet in floor area and fences over seven (7) feet in <br />height. <br />The proposed Ordinance Amendment focuses primarily on updating Zoning Code language to reflect the new <br />thresholds in the 2015 MSBC. It clarifies that detached accessory buildings and fences not addressed by MSBC <br />require a zoning permit. This language was preferred over specific heights or square footages to avoid the need for <br />future amendments if the thresholds in the MSBC are revised in the future. <br />It should be noted that currently, City Code allows for prefabricated plastic storage containers that are 120 square <br />feet or less in size. As drafted, prefabricated plastic storage sheds would still be permissible as long as they don't <br />exceed the threshold triggering the requirement of a building permit. Staff has researched these products and has <br />found several offerings that are larger than 120 square feet but generally less than 200 square feet (pictures of <br />various examples are attached to the case). Staff would like feedback from the Planning Commission specifically on <br />whether these 'larger' plastic storage sheds should be permissible or if their size should remain limited to 120 square <br />feet or less. <br />The proposed Ordinance Amendment also would eliminate the requirement for a driveway to service any detached <br />accessory building with a doorway opening of eight (8) feet wide by seven (7) feet tall or greater (essentially the <br />equivalent of a single stall garage door). Staff has received quite a bit of feedback, mostly negative, regarding this <br />requirement. The intention was to help reinforce off-street parking standards (vehicles being stored/parked on a <br />prepared surface). However, this can add a substantial cost to a project for an improvement (driveway) that <br />typically would not be accessed or utilized on a regular basis. Furthermore, it has the effect of requiring additional <br />impervious surfacing on a lot, which increases stormwater runoff while simultaneously reducing infiltration on a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.