01-27-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■ ■■■ ■ . ;- 'v^':V’^/v '.=i- ' , ■■■^y\ ■■.•; " •: :■;;; v -•■-■f.= ■: 5$i'' 4 ?' ;i fv^V ; ■ V <Itti »' ^ ■ :*.,,v -V <'.■Mip^pWW—• _ *-*aJ^WWWO****Bam. r,.-' ;"t ' ■■■• . -a. ■ i-v • •■ •. .V' ISSOS VI. Covenants to Tie th« Rain Structura to J^ccessorv Structores.Staff feels it Is appropriate* in the case of conditional use permits* to require the condition that the main structure and the oversized accessory structure on a property way never be separated by a property line that would have the following effects: A) Place the accessory structure on e property with ho principal building. B) Place the accessory structure on a property* whether or not that property contains a principal building* that does not contain the required area to support an accessory building of that size based on the conditional use permit formula (i.e. a 10 acre prcoerty in a 2>acre zone that contains a principal residence and a 1*500 s.f. accessory building could not be subdivided down to a lot size less than 7 acres* which would still allow them that 1*500 s.f. accessory structure under the formula). C) Create a situation where an oversize or overhelght accessory building would have less than the setbaclc required per these ordinance amendments. Where oversize accessory structures already exist, this section would have a distinct limitation on the size of lots that would be required to accommodate those buildings if a subdivision occurred. This ordinance would then have the effect of, during the subdivision process* forcing those oversize accessory buildings to either be removed or would require that they stay on extremely large properties. In this respect* the ordinance is self-policing. When a property that contains an oversized building is to be further developed or subdivided* the Issue of the oversized building is autcxnatically forced. : v:..» V- -