02-12-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 February 5, 1996 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Both options yield individual buildings with footprint areas large enough to have a visual impact on a neighborhood if constructed at the minimum allowed setback rather than placed centrally on the property. - While the ordinance doesn't require screening, visual compatibility, or other performance standards which might make a larger building acceptable, such requirements could be established for each building requested by variance procedure. Planning Commission was more concerned about individual large buildings than the total square footage of all accessory buildings. Tliey noted that only one oversized accessory structure is allowed per property, hence all additional accessory buildings would have to be 1,000 s.f. or less. The four members of the Planning Commission present at the January meeting concluded that there is no pressing need for this code amendment. They further concluded that the City would retain greater control over large accessory structures by leaving the table "as is", especially as it pertains to individual structures. Planning Commission was not as concerned about the total accessory structure footprint area limitation of 6,000 s.f., and some members indicated a degree of support for expanding that portion of the table. How ever, Planning Com.mission's official recommendation to the Council is to not amend this code section. Staff Recommendation The two optional methods for expanding the table each result in individual structures which rnay be large enough to have a negative impact on adjacent property owners or generally within the neighborhood, especially if inappropriately located. If Council leels that the table should be amended for larger properties, then it may be appropriate to place more restrictive standards as buildings get larger, i.e.: Require screening. Require architectural feature compatibility with principal structure. Require greater setbacks as building size increases. Additionally or as an alternative. Council may wish to e.\p;ind just the portion of table regarding the total of all accessory structure footprint areas. This would effectively allow more accessory buildings of 1,000 s.f. or smaller on a larger property, which might eliminate some variance requests without allowing extremely large buildings in inappropriate locations. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To provide staff with direction as to which, if any, portions of the oversized accessory structure ordinance should be revised, and if so, direct staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration. Other options for action include tabling, referral back to Planning Commission, or establishing this as a tuturc work session topic.