Laserfiche WebLink
'"f ^ isss <br />request for council action <br />DATE: <br />ITEM NO.; / ^ <br />Department Approval: <br />Name Michael P. Gafiron <br />Title Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Oversized Accessory Structure Table <br />(Section 10.03, Subd. 9) <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Planning Commission Minutes 1/16/96 <br />B - Memo and Exhibits of 1/4/96 <br />Discussion <br />Since the oversized accessory structure ordinance was adopted in 1989, there have been a number <br />of occasions where properties in excess of 9 acres requested variances for either a single accessory <br />building larger than the 3.000 s.f limit, or requested total square footage of all accessory buildings <br />in excess of the 6,000 s.f limit currently in effect. <br />It has been suggested that the oversized accessory structure table be amended to allow larger <br />individual accessoiy' structures and a greater total square footage of accessor>' structures, for <br />properties of 10 acres or more, fhe existing table gives no direction as to what square footages <br />might be appropriate for properties larger than 9 acres. Wlien considering properties of 15, 20, 30 <br />or more acres in area, the 6,000 s.f limit on accessory structures might be construed as excessively <br />limiting. <br />Staff drafted two options for expanding the table to accommodate parcels from 10 to 60 acres in area. <br />One IS based on allowing accessory structures up to a certain percentage of the lot area. The other <br />simply increases the individual accessory structure allowance by 200 s.t. lor each additional acre <br />over 10 acres, and 400 s.f of total accessory structures tor each additional acre above 10 acres. <br />Either method results in the allowance of relatively larger accessory buildings on large parcels. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br />Planninu Commission reviewed the two options for amending the table at their January meeting. <br />A number of concerns were raised by the Commission during that review, including: <br />The number of variance requests under the current code is not overwhelming, <br />perhaps one or two a year.