Laserfiche WebLink
R~a:nmendation: <br />¥~hc intent is to: <br /> <br />a) treat all residents of so-called 2.5 acre subdMsions equitably, <br /> <br /> b) not allow metal accessory structures in t acre neighborhoods where the density is <br /> such that it would be setti'ng the stage for a metal shanty-town affect, and <br />_.c) treat minimum lot size consistently at the platting and code enforcement levels and <br /> not based on the position of your community development staff at the time, <br /> <br />then I recommend: <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />-Or- <br /> <br />Eliminating the option for developers to include road fight-of-way in achieving <br />minimum lot size (which is the language currently proposed in the ordinance <br />introduced at your last meeting), and considering lowering the threshold for metal <br />accessory structures to 2.0 acres which will still prohibit them from I acre <br />subdivisions. ~)rSb~d..,c~~ ~ ff_,,c~~, <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />-or- <br /> <br />Retaining the existing language that gives developers the option to include road <br />right-of-way when achieving minimum lot size and add language to permit staff to <br />include road right-of-way area in determining lot size for code enforcement <br />purposes. However, even with allowing for inclusion of road right-of-way as part <br />of the lot area (which is in conflict with the legal description for the lot of record), it <br />is still possible that some lots within a particular subdivision will not achieve the <br />2.5 acre requirement for a metal accessory structure and some will. Additionally, <br />you have retained a situation that will continue to breed inconsistency. Whether or <br />not road right-of-way is calcuated towards total number of eligible lots from a <br />parcel will depend on the position of .',,our community development staff at the time <br />of platting. <br /> <br />3) <br /> <br />Increase the requirement for a metal accessory structure to 3.0 acres. This would <br />also meet the intent of equitable treamaent for residents of '2.5 acre subdivisions' as <br />nobody would qualify for a metal building. This option would more aggessively <br />work towards eliminating the possibility of a shanty town affect because if the <br />threshold were decreased to 2.0 acres, there would also be a substantial number of <br />unplatted lots that would qualify for metal accessory structures in addition to those <br />lots in the so called '2.5 acre subdMsions'. <br /> <br />The Building Official, Planning Commissioner Deemer and myself have been directed by the <br />Planning Commission to draft some other amendments to City Code relating to accessou' <br />structures. Staff should be directed to also include proposed changes to accessory, structure <br />regulations based on tonight's Council discussion. <br /> <br />Council Action: <br /> <br />Motion to: <br />Direct City Staff to draft ordinance amendments relating to accessory structures based on <br />City Council discussion of 1/12/93. <br /> <br />Review Checklist: <br /> <br />Building Official <br />Zoning Administrator <br />City Administrator <br /> <br />CC: <br /> <br />'7O <br /> <br />1/12/93 <br /> <br /> <br />