Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/1999

Home

CASE #: ~ DISCUSSION ITEM: SIZE RESTRICTIONS ON GARAGES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: City Code establishes a limit on the total mount of garage and outbuilding or accessory structure space allowed on a parcel and a limit on the size of any one building. The formula is a graduated scale based on parcel size. Until April of 1998, the Code contained a provision wherein the property owner could add the difference between the size of the principal garage and 864 square feet to the size restriction established for any one building. Effectively, this made the single s~-ucture size restriction a moot regulation. Under the formula, the difference between the size of the principal garage and 864 square feet added to the single building size restriction alwvys adds up to the total allowable space, regardless of parcel or principal garage size. In 1998, the accessory stracture ordinance was amended to reduce the amount of acreage required t6r a metal or pole building to 2.0 acres and to require that metal buildings on lots ranging from 2 - 5 acres be designed with soffit, fascia and eave overhang. At the same time, there was some discussion that perhaps stricter enforcement of the single structure size limits wo::.!.d be ct deterrent to housing i.!legal businesses in accessory sh-uctures or outbuildings. And, if tt,~, property owner chose to at:~ty for a conditional use permit to put all their remaining square footage in'to one outbuilding, then they would have to be willing to go on record as not inte.ading to operate an illegal lousiness in their new outbuilding. Since the amendment becz_me effective (Aprii 13, 1998), the City has processed 7 applications for conditional use permits to put all of the eligible square footage remaining on a lot into one outbuilding, as the code allowed for prior to April, 1998. Staff feels that it is appropriate to re- assess the new regulations at thia time. Of the 7 applications, all but one was approved. One withdrew when it became apparent that the request did not have the support of staff or the Planning Commission when it became known that the purpose of the building was to house a self-employed contractor operation that had escalated to include multiple vehicles and employees. Hr waver, the applicant was _also proposing to exceed the total amount of garage space allowed on a pa.:c,,l, which would still require a conditional use permit and public hearing if we go back to the regulations in affect prior to April, .1998. In reviewing the application and approval activity over the past 10 months, it is staff's opinion that the Planning Commission and City Council really don't have a problem with outbuildings exceeding the single structure size restrictions, especially if the total allowable garage space on the property is not exceeded. The current regulations on single structure si~ restrictions have resulted in a significant increase in conditional use permit applications, whicl~"take staff time to process: The procedure also costs the property owner approximately $300.00 in processing fees, additional paperwork and project delays, just to get an approval that almost seems to be a given.