Loading...
5.b Staff Report-accessory building heighty 99 w SCDIA Staff Report Date of Meeting: April 4, 2017 To: City Council From: Neil Soltis, Administrator Re: Accessory dwelling unit building height Background: A resident recently inquired about constructing a garage with an accessory dwelling unit on the 2nd floor. The issue is one of height. Residential Accessory structure height is limited to the permitted building height in the zoning district. The height limit for detached accessory dwelling units is lesser of the height of the primary structure or 20' with some exceptions (barn, silo, or historic structures). The issue here is that the primary structure is 18' with a flat roof. Based on the development code the height limit would be the 18', in which case they could not have a 2nd floor on the accessory structure. A variance would not been the standards since it is not a result of the circumstances unique to the property. Sherri provided the following comments on this provision in the development code: The provision is pretty consistent with the rest of the ordinance relating to accessory structures, and consistent with the Planning Commission's thoughts that the accessory dwelling units should be subordinate to the primary structure. Some thoughts: • The exception for barns and historic structures is consistent with the fact that the City gives a height exception for those structures throughout the ordinance, in order to help to preserve these structures. So a landowner can have a 40' tall barn or silo as an accessory structure, but not a modern pole barn. Similarly, an accessory dwelling unit could be located in that taller barn or silo, but not in a non -historic garage or building. • The restriction on height in the ordinance is included in other community ordinances for the same reason the PC put it in the City's ordinance—so that the accessory dwelling would be subordinate to the primary dwelling. So someone could not have a one-story house, and build a 35' accessory building intended for an accessory dwelling, which starts to look like the primary dwelling because it is visually dominating. • The PC could consider whether there is a contradiction here that should be addressed. Many communities prohibit all accessory buildings from being taller than the primary building, but as a rural community, I think Scandia has not done that since many ag structures, pole barns, etc., may be taller than a one or 2 story house, and people are used to thinking of the barns, pole structures, etc. as accessory buildings. Lot size might also be an issue here—on small lots in the Village or lakeshore areas, the taller accessory dwellings might be more of an issue than on 10 - acre parcels. The concept of having a subordinate accessory structure seem to be in conflict with the accessory structure height limit. An accessory structure 35' tall could be constructed on the same property however, if it is intended to have a dwelling unit, the limit is reduced to 20' (or less). We thought it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to have a discussion on this to see if clarification / revisions are necessary.