Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears proposal to raise accessory-building size caps for large lots, and to allow clustered street trees in rural subdivisions
Summary
Planning staff proposed raising accessory-building caps for larger lots (examples: up to 7,500 sq ft on the largest parcels) and a text amendment to allow clustered frontage plantings for rural subdivisions while keeping the same total tree count; the commission asked staff to refine language and scheduled a public hearing.
Planning staff presented a draft text amendment that would change accessory-building size limits for larger lots and adjust the city’s street-tree requirement for rural subdivisions.
Staff said surrounding cities show wide variation and proposed stepped increases so that 5–10 acre lots would have a higher cap (one illustrative cap raised to about 4,700 square feet) and lots over 10 acres could have a cap around 7,500 square feet. "So I've just made a suggestion at 5 to 10, instead of 200 square feet over the 3,200 square feet allowed, it would be 300...so that'd be a 4,700 square foot max building," the planning staff member said.
Commissioners pressed staff to ensure the amendment prevents accessory buildings from becoming dwelling units and to make clear whether limits reference footprint only, story space, or storage space. The planning staff said occupancy and building-code enforcement would limit conversions to living space and that footprint is the operative measure in current practice.
On street trees, staff noted the code currently requires one large deciduous street tree every 40 feet of frontage. The staff proposal would allow the same total number of trees to be grouped or clustered in rural subdivisions to preserve a more rural appearance, with the trees still equaling the total that would be required by the 40-foot standard.
Staff said, if the commission is comfortable with the direction, the proposal would be brought back as a text amendment for public hearing at a subsequent meeting. Commissioners asked staff to refine definitions (for instance, using the term "frontage plantings" instead of "street plantings"), clarify which zoning categories the change would apply to, and tie accessory-building limits to footprint and occupancy controls.
The commission agreed to pursue a public hearing on the proposed text amendments after staff incorporates clarifications.
