Laserfiche WebLink
<br />18:7538 <br /> <br />measured from the rear lot line, accessory buildings may not occupy <br />more than one fourth of this rear yard area and must not be closer than <br />three feet to the rear lot line, accessory buildings may not be more <br />than one story and shall not exceed sixteen feet in height, the <br />combined area of all buildings on any lot shall not exceed 45 percent <br />of the lot area. <br /> <br />Mayor Arth declared the hearing open. No one desiring to be heard <br />the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by Councilman Butterworth, seconded <br />by Councilman Rage and carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Councilman Hage MOVED to APPROVE the recommendation of the Commission 1 <br />as contained in its Resolution No. 687. Motion seconded by Councilman <br />Butterworth and carried unanimously. <br /> <br />(b) <br /> <br />Discussion held on the size limitation of an accessory building in <br />Zones R-O and,R-l. In a staff report dated November 14 it was noted <br />that staff felt that to truly accomplish the purpose of keeping Zones <br />R-O and R-l primarily residential and to more thoroughly prevent the <br />development of additional dwelling units on such lots, or the building <br />of structures which might later be converted to even commercial purposes, <br />an additional regulation was required - to limit the size of an accessory <br />building to 50 percent of the main structure size, after eliminating the <br />previously inequitable distinction between attached and unattached garages. <br /> <br />It was further noted that surveys revealed that almost none of the presently <br />developed R-O and R-l property contain accessory buildings exceeding this <br />50 percent of main structural size, and that in staff opinion that limi- <br />tation would not be too restrictive. <br /> <br />Councilman Considine stated for the record: "It is my feeling that <br />government is interfering more and more into the affairs of people. I <br />think the regulation we have just approved, the recommendation of the <br />Planning Commission in its Resolution No. 687, pretty well restricts <br />what can be done with a yard so far as accessory buildings are concerned. <br />There is also the zoning ordinance. We have insisted that he keep 55 <br />percent of his total lot open in green area. We have prevented him from <br />building on more than 25 percent in his required rear yard. We have <br />restricted the size of the height of buildings that he can construct. It <br />would seem to me that we should not infringe on a man's right to use his <br />ground further than this. I think he should have the right to raise <br />flowers, orchids, birds or whatever else he might choose to raise, as long <br />as it is within the governing ordinance. If he chooses to have a stable <br />or tack room with horses in a permitted area) he could have up to three <br />horses if he has the required area and he might have a barn, corral or <br />tack room uhich could well not exceed the requirements of Resolution No. <br />687 but might approach or exceed the 50 percent of his home...I think we <br />are now getting to a point where we are arbitrarily infringing on people's <br />right to use their land for their own pleasure and benefit. I think if at <br />man is going to have a machine shop certainly his neighbors are going to <br />us know and we could issue a cease and desist order or if he is using it <br />more than a hobby. The same would be true of a commercial green house <br />operation and I for one would rather see a man doing a car overhaul in an <br />enclosed garage than leave an unsightly carcass of cars strewn about the <br />yard because they are not housed. I think we have covered the requirements <br />of what is necessary for an auxiliary building in the aforementioned reso- <br />lution and additional limitation on a maximum size is completely unnecessary. <br />I think it is also causing the government to infringe unnecessarily on the <br />right of the people to use their land. ,Either the 55 percent is a right use <br />for green space or it isn't. If we have 55 percent open, then why worry <br />about what they do with the other 45 percent as long as it stays in the <br />confines of the balance of the regulation." <br /> <br />11-18-69 <br /> <br />- 2 - <br />