Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Planning Commission/OA96-5, OA 96-6 Page 2 <br />April 23, 1996 <br /> <br />single family residential districts (ie. Rlb, Rlc, Rld) would be allowed only as a <br />conditional use on more than 10 unplatted acres. <br /> <br />Further amendments were approved in 1992 in response to a request to raise <br />ostriches in the agricultural zone. The amendments adopted in 1992 are <br />reflected in the current Ordinance. The current regulations state that <br />agricultural uses in the A-1 and Rla zone are a'permitted use ff on five or more <br />unplatted acres, a conditional use on less than five acres or ff the property has <br />been platted and in the other single family residential districts allowed only as a <br />conditional use on more than 10 unplatted acres. <br /> <br />At the March 26, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission <br />discussed an apphcation for variance from the 300 foot required setback between <br />agricultural buildings and adjacent residences and a conditional use permit to <br />have a horse. The apphcant, the Kowalzeks, had constructed a metal building on <br />their lot that was initially going to be used as a storage building and conformed <br />to the setback requirements for an accessory structure. At the time they built <br />the pole barn there was no neighboring dwelling that they had to be 300 feet <br />from. After the building was completed, they decided to use it to stable a horse. <br />In the mean time, the neighbor to the west built a house within 300 feet of the <br />pole barn and thus triggered the need for the Kowalzeks to request a variance to <br />have an agricultural building within 300 feet of an adjacent dwelling. As a <br />result of this apphcation, the following issues were raised: <br /> <br />the point was made that it is unfair to hold property owners accountable to a <br />setback requirement from something that they have no control over; it would <br />seem more fair and logical to establish setback requirements from a fixed and <br />known point, such as a property hne; <br /> <br />· the size of the setback and the need to have different setbacks for animals <br /> being enclosed by a fence and those in a structure; <br /> <br />the issue of lot size and the need to make a distinction between platted and <br />unplatted property. <br /> <br />Analysis <br /> <br />Setback requirements <br /> <br />The current method of measuring the setback of an agricultural building from <br />an adjacent residential structure can causes problems. It does not allow a <br />property owner to plan out or phase development of theft property regarding <br />placement of an agricultural building and fence. Their plans hinge on where <br />theft neighbor places their house or constructs an addition. By measuring the <br />setback from a fixed point, like principle structures and other accessory <br /> <br />s :\plannin g\seott\aguses.doc <br /> <br /> <br />