Agenda Packets - 2004/02/02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Temporary Structures Report February 2, 2004 Page 2 silent on the issue and allow them, while other cities expressly allow them under certain circumstances. Ultimately the City of Crystal opted to forbid such temporary structures. Inquiries were also sent to the cities of Fridley, Shoreview, Roseville, Blaine, Spring Lake Park and Arden Hills. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission discussed this issue at their December 3rd, December 17th and January 7th meetings. While a unanimous position was not reached, a consensus did feel some type of revision was in order. However the amendment is ultimately constructed, the Planning Commission felt that the administrative and enforcement impact should be minimized so as to not impose impractical enforcement demands upon staff. The amendment proposed by the Planning Commission would involve the following changes: Temporary structures as defined in Chapter 1102 of this Title shall be Permitted for periods not to exceed six months in duration. Setbacks, location and maximum structure area shall be computed as would an accessory storage building. No vehicle shall be parked under or within such a structure if it violates outside parking regulations as addressed in Chapter 607 of the Code. Maximum allowed square footage of structure shall not exceed 288 square feet nor shall structure exceed or cause to exceed the maximum accessory building space for the property. Property owner shall be maintain the structure in the manner and appearance it was originally intended. Temporary structures in a state of disrepair or those remaining beyond the permitted date shall be considered a Public Nuisance as defined and addressed in Chapter 607. While such an amendment would not impose impractical enforcement demands on staff, I believe these proposed changes are too permissive and contrary to the intent of the 2000 Code amendment prohibiting such structures. A less permissive option was presented to the Planning Commission which would allow temporary structures only in conjunction with construction, renovation or repair projects, and only for the period in which the permit remains valid. Structures would need to be removed within 30 days after the project has been completed and signed-off by the building official. No allowance would be made for temporary structures to cover vehicles and other non-building related materials and possessions. The drawback with this option is that it would impose a greater enforcement burden on staff to verify and ensure compliance, however the burden would be marginalized by the limited number of permits issued with the more restrictive conditions. The last option considered was the “do nothing” approach; keep the status quo and make no changes to the Code. While there may be support for this option, staff would point out that prohibiting such structures altogether might be too restrictive. Striking a balance between permitted and prohibited uses is a challenge for every community and their elected representatives. Cities need to be able to adapt and be flexible--codes and ordinances should be reviewed and updated in response to changing technologies, changing demographics and changing social patterns. The objective of this process is to preserve and protect the resources and values that residents find desirable while maintaining enough flexibility to accommodate positive and constructive alterations to the community fabric.