Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes storage containers, larger accessory buildings and up to two driveways in Desert Rural draft
Summary
Staff told the council the draft would permit portable storage containers as accessory structures, propose raising the accessory-structure cap to 6,000 sq ft or rely on 25% lot coverage, and allow up to two driveways plus more dust-control options; council members debated safety rationale and a desire for minimal rural regulation.
City planning staff told the Surprise City Council that several changes are proposed to accommodate rural lifestyles, including permitting portable storage containers as a permitted accessory use, allowing accessory structures that need not be architecturally identical to the primary dwelling, and expanding driveway and driveway-surface options.
Staff explained the draft would permit up to two driveways per lot in Desert Rural to increase flexibility for large parcels while citing a transportation rationale: limiting driveways reduces conflicting left turns on local roads. "When you have a bunch of driveways on a roadway, you're gonna have conflicting left turns," a transportation staff member said.
Several council members questioned whether a two-driveway limit made sense for large lots. "This is a rural area. It's a rural area. There's no traffic," Councilman Judd said, arguing for fewer restrictions and for focusing on lot coverage rather than a strict square-foot cap.
On accessory-structure size, staff said the draft currently removes the 3,000-square-foot maximum and noted the planning commission suggested a 6,000-square-foot cap with a conditional-use approval process for larger buildings. Planning staff also noted the county comparators use lot-coverage measures; "RU 43... is the same as our rural residential as a 1 acre lots, which is 25% lot coverage," Lloyd, a planning staff member, said to illustrate how lot coverage compares across jurisdictions.
Staff also asked the council whether roadway widths should count toward buffer setbacks and said they will clarify the code language, return with a refined draft and post materials online for public review. The council did not vote on any of the code changes during the session.
