03-03-1980 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ft TO; FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Alan P. Olson, Village Planner February 27, 1980 SUBJECT: Proposed Accessory Building Ordinance In early November, 1979, a joint Planning Commission-Council Meeting included discussion regarding improving our zoning regulations concerning accessory buildings. Recognized deficiencies included: -No limit on the number of accessory buildings -No corrolation between size or number and actual lot size -No differentiation between urban and rural needs -No differentiation between residential and commercial regulations A draft was prepared and a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on December 10, 1979, but to date you have not been comfortable enough with the detailed language to have made any recommendation to the Council. Hopefully, we can resolve the remaining issues in order to provide the Council with a proposed ordinance for their early consideration. To this end, I am planning to attend your March 3, 1980 meeting when we can really hammer this thing together. I would appreciate your arriving by 7:00 P.M. to allow an hour for discussion before your regular agenda. Your February 19, 1980 minutes contained several questions which I should address here: 1. Loft storage was inserted specifically to remove questions about this typical practice. A loft should not be considered as a second story or usable space. A clarification could be; 31.320 a) Storage shall be permitted in attic or loft spaces of one story accessory buildings (and then add:) without such area being termed a "story", provided that the maximum allowed height shall not be exceeded. 2. Lakeshore yards - a definition of "lakeshore yard" was included in the proposed fence ordinance. The intention is to preclude accessory buildings, certainly within 75 ft., but also anywhere between the principal structure and the lake, regardless of distance. 3. Dwelling Use - 31.360 is the section which precludes this premature use. I agree with McDonald that tents, RV's ere. are not accessory structures. Their use as dwellings must be regulated however, and the purpose for amending it is to include the RV language to be explicit. The existing section specifies "trailers" only and was drafted years ago before RV's became popular; before "RV" became the common terminology. I also agree that this location in the Code is not the best, but it is the existing location and, short of a major recodification, the amendment is suggested in its simplest form using the existing format.