Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1993

Home

CASE REVIEW OF CITY CODE REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND EXTERIOR STORAGE OF UNLICENSED VEHICLES By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: In November we discussed that the minimum lot area when platting in the rural districts includes the road right-of-way. Further, that this conflicts with the method used in determining lot area for code enforcement purposes, which is without road right-of-way. This discussion was precipitated by a proposed ordinance which in addition to amending the B-3 Business District regulations, included 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. Staff proposed eliminating this inconsistency between how minimum lot area is determined at the platting stage versus the code enforcement stage because many home buyers assumed they were getting a 2.5 acre lot when they bought into the "2.5 acre subdivision". However, many of the lots are something less than 2.5 acres because the area required for road right-of-way was not deducted when the nurriber of eligible lots from the acreage available was calculated. One of the impacts of this is that some of the lots in a "2.5 acre subdivision" will qualify for metal buildings and'some will not. (The threshold for having a metal accessory building is 2.5 acres.) It was also pointed out to the Commission that residents in the 'so-called' 2.5 acre subdivisions that have parcels less than 2.5 acres feel they have been wronged and should be allowed to include road right-of-way in their parcel size so they can meet the requirement for a metal accessory structure. I posed the question to the Commission if they wanted to reduce the 2.5 acre threshold for metal accessory structures to right what some perceive as a wrong. The Commission reviewed information from the surrounding communities. Ramsey currently has the lowest threshold for metal accessory structures. Therefore, the Commission determined it was not appropriate to reduce that threshold to accommodate residents in so-called '2.5 acre subdivisions'. The B-3 Business District ordinance went forward to City Council with your recommendation for adoption. The ordinance required a 4-5 vote in order to be adopted. The vote was split 3-2 at ordinance introduction. The only way I could get the B-3 ordinance adopted with a 4-5 vote was to put the language back in that allows developers to include road right-of-way when meeting minimum lot size at the time of plat. Two of the councilmembers felt that the determination of lot size should beicalculated the same at code enforcement time as it is at platting time. Staff disagrees since the lega! description of a platted lot is from property line to property line, not to the center of the road. Consequently, we still have an inconsistency in City Code to resolve -- the basis for lot size being the same at the time of platting as it is at the time of code enforcement without wronging those persons that thought they bought a 2.5 acre lot. A second related issue is how many unlicensed vehicles should be allowed for exterior storage. At your regular February meeting, you reviewed a proposed ordinance that would limit the number of vehicles allowed for sale on a property at any given time to one (1) and limit the number of unlicensed vehicles that could be stored outside on a property to zero (0). The Commission determined th~tt limiting the number of vehicles for sale to one is appropriate but that the City should retain its current language to allow for the exterior storage of one unlicensed vehicle. That recommendation was passed onto Council for introduction and adoption. Again, adoption requires a 4-5 vote. A.~gain, Council was split and the ordinance was introduced with a 3-2 vote but the number of unhcensed vehicles permitted for outside storage was changed to zero (0). Two of the