The planning commission took a look at rules for accessory buildings during its work session Thursday, March 1.
Chris Suneson, director of community development services, said that the commission will be voting on these amendments to the city's regulations during its regular meeting on Monday, March 12.
Previously, he said, the commission discussed three issues with accessory buildings: size, location and height.
"Knowing the commission's appetite for accessory structures, this is going to be a brief staff report," he said.
During the previous discussion, he said, the commission indicated location should use the definition of a front yard in the city's fencing regulations rather than the front plane definition initially included with the regulations. Under this set of rules, Suneson explained, the corners of the front facade of the house are used to determine what is and is not the front yard.
The distance from a given corner to the road, he said, will be considered the setback for that side of the property. So, on a house where the garage protrudes beyond what would otherwise be the front facade, he said, its corner would be used on that side and the corner resting further back would determine the required distance for the other side.
"We have one distance on this side and one distance on this side," he explained, pointing to a whiteboard illustration.
Additionally, he said, the commission decided to remove the proportional limits on accessory building size, opting instead for an absolute limit of 720 square feet for an accessory building on the same lot or 1,200 square feet for a building on an adjacent lot.
Height, he said, has two limits under this proposal. The sidewalls, he explained, have a limit of 15 feet to ensure a building may be tall enough for an RV, with an absolute limit of 25 feet tall.
City council members Linda Lloyd, Doug Fowler and John Flynn attended the meeting.
Fowler said he fully appreciated the commission's help. The current proposal, he said, simplifies a lot of the rules.
"I was really pleased with what I saw in the solution you guys came up with," he said.
Linda Lloyd said that, while she did not intend to open a can of worms by presenting an amendment to these regulations, the input was helpful.
But there was one issue, she said, in that this proposal fails to address larger lots greater than four acres in size. This, she said, means someone with a smaller home on a larger parcel is still stuck with proportional accessory structures and, in some cases, means someone with plenty of land would not be able to build as big a building as a property owner with a standard-sized lot.
The board's chair, Daniel Ellis, said that this was a fair point.
"Trying to limit somebody with that much land to 600 square feet, or whatever, seems a little overzealous," he said.
On these larger lots, he said, 1,200 square feet seems reasonable.
Ellis suggested the larger lots could have accessory structures equal in total size to 1,200 square feet or the footprint of the house, whichever is larger.
The board agreed, and this addition is expected to be included when it votes on these new accessory building rules during its regular meeting Monday, March 12.
General News on 03/07/2018