| | | | | | | | 
Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals
November 8, 2018
|
| | | | | | | | | FROM: | Mark Noble, Senior Planner | | TO: | Board of Adjustment and Appeals |
|
| | | | | | | | Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance of Materials Standards and an Overheight Accessory Structure in the Rural Residential Zone. |
| | | | | | | | Policy/Action Requested:
Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. PC2018-21, a resolution approving the proposed variance of Materials Standards and denying the variance of an Overheight Accessory Structure in the Rural Residential Zone, subject to the conditions noted in the resolution, and move its adoption. |
| | | | | | | | Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed variance of Materials Standards and deny the variance of an Overheight Accessory Structure in the Rural Residential Zone, subject to the conditions noted in the draft resolution. |
| | | | | | | | Discussion:
Site Information
Property Owner: Brad Reiland
Location: 1806 CSAH 14
Current Zoning: Rural Residential (RR) Zone
Lot Size: 4.98 Acres
Introduction
Brad Reiland, property owner of residence located at 1806 CSAH 14, has made application for a Variance of Materials Standards and an Overheight Accessory Structure in the Rural Residential Zone.
Discussion
Mr. Reiland submitted a building permit to construct a second accessory structure on his property, and during the construction and inspections period it became apparent that the 36’ by 56’ structure was going to exceed the maximum allowed height (condition of permit approval was that the height of building must not exceed 15’ at midpoint of roof, noting that a change of the original plan was required to reduce the height). Another condition of approval was that smooth or corrugated metal siding is not permitted; rather, exterior rated and finished (painted or stained) wood siding was permitted. He subsequently submitted a Variance application to allow an overheight accessory structure. Additionally, he included a request to allow metal siding on this structure, which is not listed as a permitted material. The City Code regulations for materials are listed below:
Section 151.108 (A) (4) Major exterior materials prohibited. Unadorned pre-stressed concrete panels, whether smooth or raked; non-decorative concrete block; sheet metal; corrugated metal; or unfinished metal (except copper or other metal specifically engineered for exterior architectural use, shall not be used as exterior materials. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings except those accessory buildings not visible from any property line. No more than 25% of any exterior wall on a building shall be wood or metal accent material.
Additionally, the City Code regulations for accessory structures located within the Rural Residential Zone are as follow:
Section 151.007 (B) Accessory structures.
(2) Size.
(a) Except in the Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone, no accessory structure shall exceed the height of the principal building or 15 feet in a residential zone, whichever is less. In the Low-Density Residential (R-1A), Urban Residential (R-1B), Old Shakopee Residential (R-1C), Medium-Density Residential (R-2), and Multiple-family Residential (R-3) Zones, no accessory building shall exceed 10% of the lot area or exceed 75% of the square footage of the footprint of the principal dwelling, whichever is less.
(b) A conditional use permit is required to exceed the above size requirements in the Old Shakopee Residential (R-1C) Zone. A variance procedure is applicable in all other districts.
(3) Front yard setback. Each accessory structure shall be setback at least as far as the principal building on the lot. In the Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Rural Residential (RR) Zones, no accessory structure may be located closer to the front lot line than the principal buildings or 200 feet, whichever is less.
(4) Side and rear yard setbacks.
(a) An accessory structure shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from the side or rear lot line.
Originally, the structure was planned as a 32’ by 56’ structure, but was revised to 36’ by 56’. The change in the building width would have resulted in approx. 1 additional foot of overall height, or 6” of height per City Code regulations. The Rural Residential Zone does not regulate the number of accessory structures on a property; rather, it regulates total lot coverage (30% maximum allowed). This site is approx. 5 acres in size, which would allow approx. 1.494 acres of structures and hard surfaced area (patios, sidewalks, driveways, etc.). This site is in compliance with the City requirements for lot coverage and appears to be in compliance with the 5-foot min. side yard setback. Verification of that requirement should occur with the building permit inspections process.
The property owner/applicant has requested the use of standing seam sheet metal wall paneled siding, with a height proposed at 19’-2”, where 15’-0” is the max. allowed without Variance approval. The definition of height in the City Code is the vertical distance between the ground and one-half the distance between the lowest eave and the highest gable on a pitched roof. For new construction, the ground level shall be the original or pre-construction average ground elevation adjoining the structure’s footprint. With this project, it was difficult to establish the pre-construction average ground elevation since the project was started over 1 year ago, with work stopped in January, 2018.
The intent regarding the materials is to match the color scheme of the existing accessory structure, which has a darker gray siding to approx. the wainscot height (approx. 3’-6”), with a plum color scheme the balance of the siding. The height proposed for this structure would be slightly taller than the existing structure, which is approx. 18’-8”. Regarding the first accessory structure height, the building inspector of record failed to measure the height properly and issued a final certificate of occupancy. That inspector is no longer employed with the City of Shakopee. Regardless, that oversight has no bearing on whether this second accessory structure is approved or denied.
Planning staff did receive a comment from Shakopee Public Utilities (SPU), which stated that the applicant shall contact them to discuss electric service requirements related to increase in electric loads.
Planning staff did also receive comments from two neighboring property owners. Attached is an email from Marianne and Phil Kanning, whom wrote in support of the requested Variances. Additionally, attached is a letter and documents/photos provided by Tony and Maria Poehling, whom wrote in opposition to the square footage and height of the proposed structure, in conjunction with the first accessory structure. In their documentation, the Poehling’s referenced Scott County code regulations regarding the height and the building area. Staff had previously shared with them that the City of Shakopee City Code is the prevailing ordinance that city staff follow concerning zoning code requirements – the Scott County Zoning Ordinance 4-3-9 is not the appropriate document for use to evaluate zoning regulations within the City of Shakopee. Planning Staff utilized the current City Code in their evaluation of this building and of the requested variances.
Variance Findings:
Criterion 1
The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Practical difficulties mean the following:
1.A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance:
Finding 1.A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The ordinance has established language that allow property owners to construct accessory structures on their property, with height, area, setback and materials standards, within certain parameters. Rural Residential property owners are afforded regulations that allow larger structures than one may find in the urban residential subdivisions. This application pertains to a request for a structure that exceeds those regulations, or varies from the material standards, which one may view as unreasonable in this particular case.
1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
Finding 1.B. The circumstances of this project are not unique to the property. The property owner is desiring the ability to construct a 2nd accessory structure that would match the existing structure. Staff believes the property owner could have constructed a 2nd structure in compliance with the height regulations of the City Code, and there are no known unique circumstances that would have prohibited that construction.
1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding 1.C. The circumstances were created by the landowner’s desire to have a taller accessory structure.
1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Finding 1.D. Staff believe that a variance of the materials would not alter the character of the locality, as the properties in this area are substantially wooded such that the structure is virtually invisible from the public right-of-way and is partially screened from the adjacent properties such that it is difficult to ascertain the building materials until one is very close to the structure. Whereas, the building height would have more of an impact on the character of the locality, as the massing of the structure is approx. 25% greater than allowed by code, and the setback is established at the min. distance (5’), which causes it to appear all that more imposing.
1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute a practical difficulty if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Finding 1.E. The request is not economic in nature, rather a desire to match an existing accessory structure.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Finding 2 The proposed variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 151.
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3 The requests are not a use variance.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties.
Finding 4 The conditions listed below will regulate the use of the property by providing for ways of mitigating the impact of the proposed building materials. Additional plantings could mitigate the impact on the adjacent properties if the structure was setback further from the property line and plantings could be provided as a screening tool.
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:
Finding 5 (Not applicable since this property is not within the flood plain overlay zone.)
|
|