Agenda - Council - 06/29/1993 - Joint with Planning and Zoning Commission

Home

I I I I ! I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I CASE #1: REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE SECTION 9.11.02 (ACCESSORY USES) By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: Over the pa~t 6 months, we discussed that code allows developers to include road right-of-way when meeting minimum lot size requirements in the rural districts and the fact that this conflicts with the method used in determmang lot area for code enforcement purposes, which is vathout road right-of-waY. Staff proposed eliminating this inconsistency because many home buyers assumed they were getting a 2.5 acre lot when they bought into the "2.5 acre subdivision". However, many of the lots Me something less than 2.5 acres because the area required for road right-of-way was not deducted when the number of eligible lots from the acreage available was calculated. Consequently, these residents do not have the area threshold required (2.5 acres) to have a metal accessory S ~a'ucture (pole b, uilding). The method staff chose to eliminate the inconsistency was amend code' definition of lot, minimum area of' to delete language that permits developers to include road right-of-way when meeting minimum lot size requirements. Regardless of the fact that some residents would not qualify for a pole building because their lot in a so-called '2.5 acre subdivision'~ was something less than 2.5 acres, the Commission recommended retaining the 2.5 acre threshcfld based on it being the most liberal in comparison to lot size requirements in surrounding;communities. Some of the councilmembers felt that the definition change only partly solved the problem; that residents on!something slighfly less than 2.5 acres were being wronged and that lot size should be calculated the same at code enforcement time as it is at platting time. Staff disagreed since the legal description 0f a platted lot is from property line to property line, not to the center of the road. The amendment to change the definition of 'lot, minimum area of failed and the ability to use right-of- way when meeting minimum lot size was retained. The Council sent this issue back to the Planning Commission for further study. An additional issue in this same section of City Code is the storage of unlicensed vehicles. This discussion also surfaced during the discussion of lot areas and pole buildings. An amendment was included in ~e draft ordinance that would Limit the number of vehicles allowed for sale on a property at any given time to one (1) and prohibit any outside storage of unlicensed vehicles. The Commission determined that limiting the number of vehicles for sale to one is appropriate but that the City~ should retain its current language to allow for the exterior storage of one unlicensed vehicle. With respect to pole buildings, the recommendation was to amend the definition of 'lot, mirfimum area of' to eliminate the ability to include road right-of-way when platting and to right those resideats that feel they have been wronged, reduce the threshold for pole buildings from 2.5 acres to 2.3 acres with some additional performance standards place on the pole buildings. Again at Council l~vel, there were split votes and these recommendations did not pass. There were concerns with still allowing for the outside storage of one unlicensed vehicle and what was defined as vehicle, md reducing the threshold for pole buildings to 2.3 acres. It was determined that it would be appropriate for Council and the Planning Commission to conduct a workshop meeting to come to some agreement on these issues.