Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/2017

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Date: 07/06/2017 Submitted For: Alec Henderson, Community Development By: Alec Henderson, Community Development Information Title: Discuss Concerns Raised on Accessory Building Architectural Standards 6. 4. Purpose/Background: At the June 13, 2017 City Council Meeting, concerns about the architectural standards for accessory buildings were brought up by a resident of Ramsey. The comments concerned a metal paneled pole barn that was recently constructed on his neighbor's property and whether these metal panel structures should be allowed on smaller lots. The City Council suggested the Planning Commission review the standards associated with accessory building and metal panel structures in particular to determine whether any additional design and architectural controls are warranted. Notification: Observations/Alternatives: Sec 117-349 of the zoning code outlines the standards for accessory buildings. In the R-1 Residential (MUSA) zoning district, detached accessory buildings need to be the same general design and materials as the home if the lot is under two (2) acres. If a lot is at least two (2) acres in size, a detached accessory building can have the "same general design and materials as home or color compatible metal panels". In the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) zoning district, regardless of lot size, detached accessory buildings can have the "same general design and materials as home or color compatible metal panels". In 2011, the accessory building standards were amended to provide additional flexibility regarding the use of metal paneled finishes. This amendment eliminated the two (2) acre threshold (in the Rural Developing zoning district) that previously was required to have color compatible metal panels. This same amendment also enhanced the architectural standards for detached accessory buildings by requiring them all to have soffit, fascia, and eave overhangs to match the home. Staff is not suggesting that revisions or amendments are needed at this time. Rather, the purpose of this discussion is to update the Planning Commission about recent feedback the City has received regarding a metal sided accessory building that was recently erected and for the Planning Commission to provide direction to Staff as to whether these regulations need to or should be updated. Several points to contemplate and provide direction on include: • Should metal paneled buildings (pole buildings) be allowed on any parcel regardless of acreage (currently, no minimum size required in the Rural Developing district and a two [2] acre minimum in the MUSA district)? • Should additional architectural features be employed (such as requiring a minimum roof pitch and/or a roof pitch that matches the home)? • What is meant by color compatibility? Color and compatibility can be very subjective; is the intent really to be the same general color as the home (if home is gray, accessory building should be a shade of gray)? • There are provisions in City Code that allow a pole barn to be located in front of a home with enhanced features (minimum of three of the following: at least three [3] compatible colors, 35% brick on front/street facing side[s], 10% window coverage on front/street facing side[s] and common property lines, 100% vegetative screening). Should this provision remain and if so, are there other features that could be included in the menu of options to choose from?