Laserfiche WebLink
CASE #3 <br /> <br />REVIEW iOF CITY CODE REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES <br /> By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />At your Octol~er meeting, we discussed the fact that the method used for determining minimum lot <br />area when plating (with road fight-of-way) conflicts with the method used in determining lot area <br />for code enf0rcoment purposes (without road right-of-way). At that time, the Commission <br />recommendexl some definition changes in City Code to eliminate the ability to use of road fight-of- <br />way to meet ffdnimum lot area requirements when platting. <br /> <br />We also diset!ssed one of the problems that has arisen from allowing developers to include road <br />fight-of-way in meeting minimum lot sizes when property is platted. Many home buyers thought <br />that they we~ geffing a 2.5 acre lot when they bought into the "2.5 acre subdivision", when in fact <br />many of the lets are something less than 2.5 acres. The threshold for having a pole building is 2.5 <br />acres. The impa~t of this is that some of the lots in a "2.5 acre subdivision" will qualify for pole <br />buildings andssome will not. The Commission direction was that I place a case on this agenda to <br />review our c!arrent regulations for accessory structures for the purpose of determining if any <br />amendments I!> it b. re appropriate at this time. <br /> <br />Enclosed for Your information and review is a copy of the current code regulations for accessory <br />stmctures. <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />A first thought might be to reduce the threshold for pole buildings from something less than 2.5 <br />acres to something more than 2.0 so that all residents in "2.5 acre subdivisions" are treated <br />equitably. TI~ following is a summary of the minimum acreage requirement for pole buildings in <br />some of the stirrounding communities: <br /> <br />Commonity, ' Threshold for Pole Buildings <br /> <br />Special Notes <br /> <br />Andover 3 acres <br /> <br />Elk River 5 acres <br /> <br />300' setback from neighboring residences <br />or platted areas. <br /> <br />Champlin <br /> <br />Residential/Agriculture <br />zoned areas only <br /> <br />Pole building cannot exceed size of home on <br />parcels less than 10 acres in size <br /> <br />Ham Lake 5 acres <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Of the surrou ,riding communities, Ramsey already has one of the most lenient acreage thresholds <br />for pole buildingS. I recommend that there be no reduction of the acreage threshold for pole <br />buildings. Except for some isolated cases, as evidenced by the numbers of applications for <br />conditional use permits for accessory structures larger than code allows, I believe the size <br />allowances etirrently established are adequate. The language that establishes the standards for <br />bmld~ng designs and exterior famng fimsh could be amended for clarification purposes. The table <br />working out the formula for graduating accessory structure size limits based on parcel size is <br /> <br /> <br />