Loading...
5. Heller_Unified Development Code CommentsTo: Scandia City Council Scandia Planning Commission Ken Cammilleri | City Administrator From: Brian and Janet Heller (Property owners at 11090 190th St.) Date: April 20, 2022 To Whom It May Concern, We have been following the drafting of the Unified Development Code and we have the following questions and comments we would like you to consider listed below. We appreciate and thank you for reviewing these items for us. Sincerely, Brian and Janet Heller 153.200.030 Subd. 1. A. I. c. describes items that can encroach into setback areas. In all cases the Development Code states the allowed encroachment distance is 3 feet. We request that that space be increased to at least 4 feet. For item iii. in particular accessible ramps, should be allowed a wider encroachment. Handicap ramps should have a minimum space of 36” between rails to accommodate wheelchairs. Including handrails and allowing some space between the ramp and a structure, so that the railing and ramp don’t need to be attached directly to the structure, should justify an increase beyond 36” to a minimum of 48”. We would also like a new line added for fixed outdoor appliances (Air Conditioner, Exterior Heat Pump, Generator, Outdoor Wood Boiler, Hot Tubs, etc.) to be included in the list of items that can extend into the setback area. These items can be added to a residence well after it has been built and it would be nice to know if these would be permitted to be added or if a variance or conditional use permit would be needed to add these to a Primary or Accessory Structure. Table 153.2002030-20 Accessory Building Dimensional Standards Table This is just an item to ponder. We don’t have a specific recommendation. This table designates maximum aggregate sizes for buildings/ structures on various sized lots. Table 153.200.030-1 Summary of Dimensional Standards for Base Zoning Districts lists lot coverage maximums, the most restrictive of which is 25%. For larger parcels it is extremely difficult to come close to that percentage let alone reach it. As an example: You have a 10 Acre property with 3,000sf home footprint, 1,200sf attached garage, 6,000sf in accessory buildings, and 6,000sf driveway (20’ X 300’). That amounts to 16,200sf of coverage which is only 3.72% of the 10 acre parcel. If in that same category you have a 19.99 acre parcel the percent covered is cut in half. A person would need to add a parking lot or a lot of sidewalk to approach the 25% maximum. The categories of 20 acres and above allow somewhat larger non- agricultural accessory structures, but they allow unlimited agricultural accessory buildings (which would actually be limited by the 25% coverage maximum). The item to think about is why are accessory structures limited to the sizes they are on larger lots when it is difficult to get 25% coverage. Either the accessory structures are held to an unreasonably small size or the 25% coverage isn’t a realistic number for large lots. 153.300.030 USE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS Subd. 1 (II) Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). Wind energy conversion systems must comply with the following standards. VII. Rotors may not exceed 26 feet in diameter and must have a clearance of 30 feet over any tree or structure within the parcel where it is located. For clarification: Does this mean that the bottom of the rotor at its lowest point must rest 30 feet above the top of all trees on the property? If it does, this seems to conflict somewhat with the tree standards stating the need for major overstory trees. For example a red oak can reach a height of 75’ and a silver maple can reach a height of 80’. For mature trees of these heights, the highest allowed part of the WECS (100’) may not be 30’ above the top of the tallest trees on the parcel, let alone the lowest part of the rotor. If only a clearance of 30’ is required and elevation is not important then perhaps the word “from” would be more appropriate than the word “over” in the section above in bold. 153.400.030 SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN Subd. 3. Building Type and Materials. (A) General Standards. III. Finished Building Material for Principal Structures. For clarification: How does this section relate to exposed (above grade) foundation walls, primarily poured concrete or concrete block? Do exposed foundation walls need to be covered in a finish material? 153.400.040 CHARACTER AREA STANDARDS 153.400.040 Subd. 1. B. I. g. and II. d. Fences This seems too restrictive. For sufficiently large yards that have few or no trees, nearly any fence behind a structure can be seen by moving far enough to the side. This would effectively remove chain link as being an option for many large yards, even when placed in the backyard. Chain link fencing provides protection and containment for pets while allowing a minimally obstructed view through the fence. Can set back or other placement requirements (eg. 200’ or more from right of way) be established to allow the use of all fence types in large yards? 153.400.060 LANDSCAPING, BUFFERING AND FENCES 153.400.060 Subd. 2. (D) III. Note: The following may not be applicable as residential subdivisions and commercial properties tend to be smaller. Table 153.400.060-1. Required Number of Trees This table provides a count of major overstory trees required, on landscape plans. These requirements are generic. Lot size and usage is an important factor. Properties in Rural Residential Neighborhood, Village - Historic Core and Village - Historic Center may be too small to support 5 major overstory trees per residence (when fully grown), whereas the other zoning districts usually have larger parcels that can handle the number of trees more easily. Conversely a 40 acre parcel should be able to support many more than the 5 trees per residence specified with a possible major exception if the land is used for growing crops or raising livestock (particularly livestock that graze). If the city wants standards for tree coverage it should match the character of each of the underlying zoning districts. If plans are only required for small lots this may never be an issue, but if plans are ever required for large lots this table may be inadequate. 153.400.060 Subd. 2. (G) Minimum Planting Size (minor formatting comment) The name of this article is misleading. It has the following 2 tables listed underneath. Table 153.400.060-2. Minimum Planting Size Required Table 153.400.060-3. List of Recommended Plant Materials Subheading I. talks about species. If subheading I. was broken down into overstory, understory, ornamental or shrub, species I would understand it being under (G), but as it is written the second table seems like it should be a separate clause. Maybe (G) would be better titled Plant Selection and Minimum Quantities. 153.400.060 Subd. 2. (G) IV. Parking Lots/Planting Islands. Are the trees in this section in addition to those required in Table 153.400.060-1. Required Number of Trees? Other Notes, Comments and Concerns Can the word agricultural be defined? Different places define the term agricultural differently. Raising livestock and annual sow and harvest crops are usually included in that definition, however activities like beekeeping and collecting honey, tapping trees and producing syrup, harvesting trees and producing lumber and/or firewood are some activities involving the land that are often overlooked. We would appreciate it if the definition would include these and similar activities that are sometimes overlooked as agricultural activities. Is there a difference between “Accessory Structure” and “Accessory Building”? The Development Code uses “Accessory Building” and “Accessory Structure”, often in close proximity. “Accessory Use or Structure” is defined however “Accessory Building” is not. If there is a difference it would be nice to have both terms defined. If there is no difference a consistent phrasing should be used throughout the Development Code. References to tables. There is/ are: 1 reference to “Table 1” but can’t find a table labeled “Table 1”. 11 references to “Table 2” but can’t find a table labeled “Table 2”. 2 references to “Table 6” but can’t find a table labeled “Table 6”. Can language be added to facilitate garbage and recycling pickup on large lots? For large lots where the houses are set back a large distance it would be nice to have an approved means to store trash and recycling containers near the street. In the winter especially, hauling these carts long distances increases the chances for injury due to slips and falls. It is easier and safer to transport individual bags of waste in a vehicle down the driveway to the containers than it is to walk the containers down the driveway. Having the carts in an enclosure, especially one with a top or roof, also provides an impediment for animals (rodents and bears) getting into the carts. We propose allowing an additional structure on parcels with driveways over 100’ to house and obscure from view, trash and recycling cans, to be placed near the driveway and within 20 feet of the right of way. The size should not exceed whatever is required to house both a residential trash cart and a residential recycling cart that the city or private waste haulers usually provide (approximately 3’ deep X 6’ wide’ X 5’ tall). The design and materials would be up to the city to decide to balance homeowner safety with neighbors’ aesthetic views. [A similar allowance may be appropriate for homes with driveways exceeding a specified slope.] Can language be added to permit construction of an Accessory Structure prior to the Primary Structure? A proposal for this would be to allow an accessory structure to be built prior to the primary structure with the understanding that a primary structure must be constructed within 36 months of the accessory structure being approved. This could allow 24 months to store equipment to prepare the land for construction of the primary structure and allow people a space to store items from an unrelated property/ residence in preparation to sell that property/ residence. The other 12 months is a reasonable amount of time for permitting and construction of the primary structure. If after 36 months from approval of the accessory structure, the primary structure has not been completed, then the property would be taxed at a rate assuming all unfinished space on the property is finished. If the accessory structure has not been completed then the parcel would be taxed at a rate equivalent to if the accessory structure submitted in the building permit were complete and fully finished. Proper assessment of the property and taxes would begin once the primary structure is completed and duly inspected and passed. Note: We have no idea whether a tax penalty of this kind can be levied on a parcel for non-compliance of building permits. Current Development Code Chapter 2, Section 3.2, (2), of the existing development code states that (B) No detached accessory structure, including storage sheds, shall be located closer to the road right-of-way in relation to the front lot line than the principal building on a lot unless the following conditions are met: 2. The accessory structure is located on a lot of five (5) acres or more and is placed at least 200 feet from the road right-of-way; We have been unable to find language in the newly proposed Unified Development Code that describes this exception to allow Accessory Structures to be built closer to the right of way than the Primary Structure. We believe this exception should be in the new code. For large properties, having freedom to place the Accessory Structure closer to the right of way than the Primary Structure will allow greater flexibility in how owners place their buildings.