Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />/ <br />! <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />3) <br /> <br />4) <br /> <br />The definition for 'lot, minimum area of was amended to eliminate the ability to <br />iflclude road right-of-way when determining lot areas in the rural district. By a 4 to <br />1 leonsensus, the definition for 'lot, mum area of was amended to indicate that <br />the surface area of a lot shall be based on measurement from property line to <br />pioperty line, exclusive of any portion of the right-of-way of any public street or <br />thoroughfare for all commercial, industrial and all residential lots. Counci!member <br />Zimmerman agreed with the basic definition but was opposed to eliminating the <br />la~. guage that allows developers the ability to include road right-of-way when <br />t~ting minimum lot size requirements in the rural district. <br /> <br /> definition for 'Personal Services' was added to City Code. Some of our zoning <br />mi tricts list 'Personal Services' as a permitted use. Code currently does not have a <br /> trion for 'Personal Services'. (Unanimous consensus). <br /> <br />Iqmguage was added to prohibit the showing for sale of more than one vehicle on <br />property not zoned for motor vehicle sales. (Unmaimous consensus). <br /> <br />5) <br /> <br />The ability to maintain one unlicensed vehicle on a property was retained. By a 4 to <br />1 ,consensus, the number of unlicensed vehicles permitted for outside storage was <br />el~anged from one to zero. Councj!memher Zimmerman felt that the outside storage <br />of one unlicensed vehicle is reasonable and that the proposed change to zero was <br />inappropriate based on the comments submitted to the Planning and Zoning <br />C~mrnission at the public hearing. Although there are several definitions for <br />v~hicle in City Code, there is not a definition in Chapter 9 that would specifically <br />pertain to its usage in that chapter. The Subcommittee directed Staff to add a <br />definition for vehicle in Chapter 9 using the same definition as what is in State <br />Statutes. <br /> <br />6) <br /> <br />7) <br /> <br />8) <br /> <br />9) <br /> <br />10) <br /> <br />11) <br /> <br />Upon recommendation of the Building Official, Subdivision 3 of 9.11.02 was <br />amended so that the location of accessory buildings so as not to prohibit orderly <br />re~ubdivision of the property becomes the responsibility of the property owner <br />raiher than the Building Official. (Unanimous consensus). <br /> <br />It !was clarified that the maximum accessory building height regulations apply to <br />dotached accessory buildings. (Un~imous consensus). <br /> <br />FOr accuracy purposes, references to lot sizes were convened from in terms of <br />aci'es to in terms of square feet. (Unanimous consensus). <br /> <br />The lot size threshold for having metal accessory buildings (pole buildings) was <br />reduced from 2.5 acres to approximately 2.29 acres, or 100,001 square feet as it is <br />n6t referred to. By a un~imous consensus, the lot size threshold for having metal <br />accessory buildings was reduced from 2.5 acres to approximately 2.29 acres for all <br />lots created prior to July 1, 1993. For all lots created after July 1, 1993, the lot size <br />th~'eshold for a metal accessory structure will be 5 acres. <br /> <br />A,~pefformance standard was added to require that any metal building (pole <br />building) constructed within 75 feet of a property line shall be designed with soffit, <br />fada and cave overhang. (Unanimous consensus).. <br /> <br />A performance standard was added to require that the initial garage constructed on a <br />pwpeny served by City sewer and water must be attached to the dwelling. <br />(Unanimous consensus). <br /> <br />!City Council/Planning & Zoning Workshop/June 29, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />