Minutes - Council - 01/12/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion by; Councilmember Hardin and seconded by Councilmember Beyer to direct that the Charter Commission review the requirement of precinct liaison meetings. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Hardin, Beyer, Peterson and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Absent: Mayor Gilbertson. Case #4: Review of City Code Regulations for Accessory Structures Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that Council had previously discussed the fact that the method used for achieving minimum lot area when platting the rural districts includes the road fight-of-way and this conflicts with the method used in determining lot area for code enforcement purposes, which is without road fight-of-way. The proposed ordinance, introduced at the last Council meeting, includes a definition change that will no longer allow developers in the rural area the option to include road fight-of-way to meet the minimum lot size requirements. Ms. Frolik stated she is proposing to eliminate this inconsistency between how minimum lot area is determined at the platting stage versus the code enforcement stage in that many home buyers assumed they were getting a 2.5 acre lot when they bought into the "2.5 acre subdivision." One of the impacts of this is that some. of the lots in a "2.5 acre subdivision" will qualify for metal accessory buildings and some will not. She stated that some of the Councilmembers expressed concern that Staff's interpretation of lot size for code enforcement purposes is not fair to the home buyer of a "so- called" 2.5 acre property. She stated that to the best of her recollection, one of the reasons the threshold for metal accessory structures was set at 2.5 acres was that 2.5 acre subdivisions were more appropriate from a density standpoint than one acre subdivisions for metal accessory structures. She added that the Planning and Zoning Commission is not in favor of reducing the threshold to 2,5 acres unless there are performance standards. Councilmember Hardin stated he is in favor of increasing the acreage to three. He suggested that in reality, five acres should be required for a metal accessory structure. Councilmember Peterson stated he would also be in favor of increasing the requirement to three acres. Councilmember Zimmerman felt it should be left at 2.5 as it would be unfair if people bought the property and thought they could build an accessory structure and now they can't. He inquired if the 2.5 includes the fight-of-way. Ms. Frolik stated she is proposing that the developer no longer be able to use the road right-of-way when meeting minimum lot size. Councilmember Zimmerman stated he was opposed to that. Councilmember Beyer stated it wouldn't do any good to deal with this issue as it has to go back to the Planning :and Zoning Commission. She added she was in agreement with Councilmember Zimmerman. Ms. Frolik stated she wanted to be sure that all issues were addressed so nothing would stand in the way of a Pending ordinance being adopted. Council directed that Staff bring this issue back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and present the three options: reduce, maintain or increase the acreage requirement for metal accessory structures. City Council/January 12, 1993 Page 6 of 8