Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission asks staff to prepare code memo on accessory-building sizes after broad public interest
Summary
The Planning Commission discussed several council proposals to revise accessory-building size limits and directed staff to prepare a detailed memo comparing options, potential code impacts and neighboring-city approaches. Commissioners set a schedule for review leading to a public hearing in November.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Oak Grove Planning Commission on Thursday opened a wide-ranging review of proposed changes to the city's accessory-building size and lot-size standards and directed staff to prepare a detailed memo comparing options, impacts on city code and how neighboring communities regulate accessory structures.
Council members had provided draft proposals that would adjust square-foot limits for accessory buildings across different lot-size brackets and harmonize breakpoints to reduce confusion. Commissioners discussed several approaches: a modest across-the-board increase for common lot sizes (for example, raising the allowance for 1.5-to-2.5-acre lots), an approach that ties permitted accessory size to a percentage of lot area or impervious-surface calculations, and a broader harmonization that would also consider minimum lot-size policy to reduce future subdivision density.
Commissioners and staff noted technical complications that require analysis before a public hearing: whether other code sections reference the current dimensional breakpoints, how shoreland or Scenic River District overlays would be affected, how PUDs and special districts (Lake George district, preserve areas) should be treated, and what implementation language would avoid unintended consequences.
Given strong public interest conveyed to council members, commissioners requested staff produce a memo that (a) validates the proposed numerical options, (b) maps the number of parcels in each lot-size bracket (excluding PUDs where appropriate), (c) compares accessory-building rules in neighboring jurisdictions, and (d) identifies cross-references in city code or overlay districts that would need amendment. The commission set an internal timeline: staff will present the memo for commission review in October; if the commission endorses a draft code amendment, a public hearing would be scheduled thereafter (targeted for late November).
