12/01/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE #3 REVIEW OF~ CITY CODE REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES , By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background~: At your October ~e. eting, we discussed the fact that the method used for determining minimum lot area when pla~ing!(with road right-of-way) conflicts with the method used in determining lot area for code enf0yc~ment purposes (without road right-of-way). At that time, the Commission recommendedi_s0~e definition changes in City Code to eliminate the ability to use of road right-of- way to meet ~nimum lot area requirements when platting. We also discUSs .ex!! one of the problems that has arisen from allowing developers to include road right-of-way i.i! ~e.,eting minimum lot sizes when property is platted. Many home buyers thought that they wereigett{ng a 2.5 acre lot when they bought into the "2.5 acre subdivision", when in fact many of the 10~s ~ something less than 2.5 acres. The threshold for having a pole building is 2.5 acres. The in~PaCtiof this is that some of the lots in a "2.5 acre subdivision" will qualify for pole buildings and ~om9 will not. The Commission direction was that I place a case on this agenda to review our ¢idrren~: regulations for accessory structures for the purpose of determining if any amendments t~ it.~e appropriate at this time. Enclosed for ~oui' information and review is a copy of the current code regulations for accessory stmctures. : ObservationS: A first thoughi might be to reduce the threshold for pole buildings from something less than 2.5 acres to somqthi0g more than 2.0 so that all residents in "2.5 acre subdivisions" are treated equitably. Th~ f~llowing is a summary of the minimum acreage requirement for pole buildings in some of the su~o~fiding communities: (~ommuni _ty ~Threshold for Pole Buildings Special Notes Andover Elk River 3 acres 5 acres 300' setback from neighboring residences or platted areas. Champlin Residential/Agriculture zoned areas only Pole building cannot exceed size of home on parcels less than 10 acres in size Ham Lake 5 acres RecommendatiOn: Of the surrounding communities, Ramsey already has one of the most lenient acreage thresholds for pole building~ I recommend that there be no reduction of the acreage threshold for pole buildings. E~el~t for some isolated cases, as evidenced by the numbers of applications for conditional u~ ~¢rmits for accessory structures larger than code allows, I believe the size allowances eu~eh0y established are adequate. The language that establishes the standards for building desigOs ~d exterior facing finish could be amended for clarification purposes. The table working out tl~e formula for graduating accessory structure size limits based on parcel size is