Laserfiche WebLink
CAS # <br /> <br />DISCUSS PROPOSED ORDINANCES TO AMEND REGULATIONS FOR <br />ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, ACCESSORY USES AND DEFINITIONS <br /> By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />In March we discussed two issues that have been before Council that cannot achieve the required <br />4/5 vote for adoption. The first is eliminating that language in the Definitions that allows <br />developers to include road right-of-way to meet minimum lot size requirements when platting. <br />Staff proposed to eliminate this language because it conflicts with how lot size is determined for <br />code enforcement purposes (property line to property line exclusive of road right-of-way). Some <br />of the councilmembers were opposed to this because they feel that accordingly, staff should <br />account for road right-of-way when computing lot size for code enforcement purposes, especially <br />for those persons that need 2.5 acres to construct a metal building. Other councilmembers feel that <br />the metal pole buildings are not desireable structures aesthetically speaking. Consequently, they <br />are not as concerned that persons that thought they had a 2.5 acre lot have something less than that <br />because the developer was allowed to include road right-of-way to meet minimum lot size when <br />platting. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />The second issue is that Council is also divided on the number of unlicensed vehicles which should <br />be allowed for outside storage. Some councilmembers feel one is reasonable and some feel there <br />should be no outside storage of unlicensed vehicles. <br /> <br />The compromise proposed by Staff in March was to amend City Code in the following ways: <br /> <br />a) <br /> <br />Eliminate the ability to include road right-of-way in meeting minimum lot size <br />requirements when platting. <br /> <br />b) <br /> <br />Reduce the threshold for metal buildings to 2.0 acres to alleviate the concern for <br />those residents that thought they purchased a 2.5 acre lot. <br /> <br />c) <br /> <br />Establish additional performance standards for metal buildings constructed within a <br />specified distance of property lines to alleviate Council's concern with the visual <br />impact of pole buildings on neighboring property owners. <br /> <br />d) <br /> <br />Prohibit any outside storage of unlicensed vehicles now that more people will be <br />able to afford to construct the lesser expensive metal buildings to provide additional <br />indoor storage space. <br /> <br />At the meeting in March, the Planning and Zoning Commission directed City Staff to draft some <br />proposed amendments to City Code based on Staff's proposal for a compromise of the issues and <br />written recommendations submitted by Commissioner Deemer. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Observations: <br /> <br />Enclosed for your review are the proposed amendments to the Definitions and Accessory Uses <br />sections of Chapter 9. <br /> <br />To summarize, the Definitions are proposed to be amended in the following ways: <br /> <br />Accessory Building - This amendment confirms that attached garages are considered <br />accessory buildings. This confirmation strengthens the position that no conditional use <br />permits may be obtained for commercial businesses in the residential district that would be <br />operated in the accessory building (attached or detached). Staff's interpretation of City <br />Code is that conditional use permits for businesses in garages are no longer an option; only <br />conditional use permits for home occupations where the business is restricted to the <br /> <br /> <br />