Laserfiche WebLink
Proposing Zoning Memo <br />January 4,1996 <br />Page 2 <br />With the current 6,000 s.f. limit, a 20 acre lot would be 0.69% co\ ered, a 30 acre lot would be 0.46% <br />covered, etc. <br />Two Options for Table Expansion <br />Option 1 would limit individual and total accessory structure square footages based on a specified <br />percentage of lot area. One possible limit is 0.70% of lot area per individual structure, and 1.40% <br />of lot area for the total accessory structure areas. For a 20 acre lot this yields 6,100/12,200 s.f.; for <br />a 30 acre lot yields 9,150/18,300 s.f <br />Option 2 takes a slightly different approach, adding 200/400 s.f for each additional acre above 10 <br />acres. The yield here for a 20 acre lot is 5,000/10,000 s.f; and for a 30 acre lot is 7,000/14,000 s.f. <br />Option 2, therefore, yields slightly reduced square footages than Option 1. <br />Why Change the Current Table? <br />The argument in favor of extending the existing table is that it currently gives no direction as to what <br />may be appropriate for larger acreages. It dictates that any individual accessory building over 3,000 <br />s.f, or any total of structures exceeding 6,000 s.f, will require a variance. <br />Why not require a variance for such large structures? Perhaps the main concern is that it is difficult <br />if not impossible to define a legitimate hardship that justifies exceeding the limits. <br />Is there a reason for setting an absolute size limit on individual accessory buildings regardless of lot <br />size? There are no specific limitations in the Building Code, other than requiring higher design <br />standards as buildings get larger. However, recall that Subdivision 9(C-3), Item c, requires the <br />owner to execute a covenant that limits future subdivision of the property as long as the building <br />exists. The owner clearly accepts the risk of constructing an expensive building that may become <br />a liability to the property by hindering its future subdivision. <br />Is there a threshold at which building size becomes an aesthetic issue regardless of the size of thfi <br />property ? Should there be specific screening requirements for structures over a certain area or <br />dimension? Should there be compatibility requirements such as exterior wall finish, color, etc. for <br />extremely large buildings? Should they be set back further from lot lines than principal structure <br />minimums? <br />Should the limit on the size of individual accessory structures stay at 3.000 s.f? If so, we might still <br />want to allow more than 6,000 s.f of total accessory structures for properties of 10 aeres or larger. <br />Recall that a property is allowed only one oversized accessory structure.