Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.1 <br />I <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br />j <br /> <br />'\, <br /> <br />Code Amendments, Accessory Structures <br />February 22, 1994 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />At the last Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested <br />that the 300 foot setback for metal skin buildings be removed in the <br />RIA zoning district. It was determined that architectural standards <br />could dictate the quality of these structures, therefore, the 300 foot <br />setback would be unnecessary. Please keep in mind that accessory <br />structures containing livestock will still need to meet the 300 foot <br />setback requirement from any neighboring dwelling. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />City staff proposed that metal skin buildings be restricted in the RIA <br />and Al zoning districts to parcels larger than three acres. It was the <br />consensus of the Planning Commission that architectural standards of <br />metal skin buildings have increased considerably over the past ten <br />years and would like to see the City relax some of the restrictions on <br />these types of structures. The Commission proposed to allow metal <br />skin buildings on all lots in the RIA and Al zoning districts and <br />regulate the buildings by architectural standards. The Commission <br />directed staff to incorporate architectural standards into the proposed <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Staff researched this idea by talking with several metal skin accessory <br />structure companies (i.e., Morton, Lester, and Structural Building) to <br />get their ideas on the City's ordinance. All the representatives felt it <br />would be difficult to impose technical standards such as gauge of <br />metal, truss design, and style because of the extremely wide variety of <br />construction standards. Taste is also very difficult to regulate and <br />enforce because it is subjective. Certain architectural standards (such <br />as a brick decorative wainscot or a concrete floor) may work for some <br />people but not for others. Staff feels comfortable requiring that any <br />metal skin building must be painted to be compatible with the existing <br />home. Please refer to Section 900.20 (3)(6) of the proposed ordinance <br />for the specific language. Other issues such as fading, rusting, <br />concrete floor, etc., could also be incorporated into the ordinance, but <br />would be difficult to regulate. <br /> <br />Most of the metal skin buildings constructed today are of a decent <br />quality. What the City hopes to avoid is the unpainted, galvanized <br />metal building. Requiring painted metal that is compatible with the <br />existing home should alleviate most of the concern. Adding <br />requirements beyond this may infringe on individual preferences and <br />would be difficult to enforce. <br />