Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brauer, to recommend approval <br />of an ()rdinance amending driveway length and front yard setback regulations in the Town <br />(~enter Zoning District, noting the concern for pedestrian access and safety on 20-foot driveways, <br />and requesting specific feedback from the City Council, with consideration of eliminating <br />driveways and widening streets to provide parking and sidewalks in lieu of driveways. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Brauer, Levine, and <br />Van Seoy. Voting No: Commissioner Watson. Absent: Commissioner Shepherd. <br /> <br />(k,nmissioner Watson noted he does not feel they should be sacrificing the length of driveways <br /> density. <br /> <br />Case #6: <br /> <br />Public Hearing - Proposed Ordinance to the Amend Accessory Structure <br />Section ot' City Code; Case of City of Ramsey <br /> <br />Pre,se. ration <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler advised that two-story and split level accessory structures are <br />prohibited, in part, because they had been prohibited by the Building Code. She stated on March <br />24; 2003, the ban on two-story accessory buildings was eliminated from the Building Code. She <br />indicated two-story accessory buildings are not necessarily uncommon, as many people want the <br />extra space lbr a hobby shop, office, or just more storage space. She stated this can be <br />accommodated without increasing the allowable height for accessory buildings. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler explained the height of accessory structures is currently restricted to <br />sixteen feet on parcels less than 2.5 acres and twenty-two feet on parcels 2.5 acres or greater in <br />size. She advised that two acres is the point at which accessory structures can be sided with <br />metal panels that are color compatible with the home, and can be located nearer the front <br />property line than the principal structure if certain criteria are met. She stated it seems logical to <br />utilize a unitbrm size threshold for height, siding requirements, and location of accessory <br />structures. She indicated with the adoption of the cluster ordinance, which esSentially eliminates <br />thc, minimum lot size of 2.5 acres in the rural developing areas, the two acre threshold seems <br />reas~,mable to use to restrict the height of accessory structures. . <br /> <br />/\ssociatc Planner Geisler stated the size of accessory buildings is limited by the size of a parcel. <br />She indicated the size restrictions seem to be reasonable with one exception. All properties <br />larger than 10.6 acres are lumped into the same category for allowable square feet of accessory <br />buildi~g space. She stated it seems appropriate to create additional size categories that would <br />;~llow tbr more square footage for accessory buildings on larger properties. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler advised that swimming pool and space regulations are' currently <br />1,)eated in Chapter 8 of City Code. She indicated that many of the regulations, are related to <br />zoning issues, and Staff believes that most of these regulations would be more appropriately <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 21, 2005 <br /> Page 17 of 23 <br /> <br />P17 <br /> <br /> <br />