Laserfiche WebLink
is attached. Mr. Filla has had a chance to review this new draft and <br />( indicated that he had no problems with it from a legal standpoint. <br />The main purpose of these suggested changes was to clear up two <br />potential problem areas: <br />1. The one vehicle or 150 square feet of occupied space per two - <br />and -a -half acres provision is very difficult to enforce. If a boat or vehicle <br />is 150 square feet or larger, then it is 'one" and counts against two -and -a - <br />half acres. If an object is less than 150 square feet, then it is added <br />together with other small objects to make up the total square footage for <br />the remaining acreage. How many square feet does a car occupy? Less <br />than 150 is correct. What about an empty boat trailer, etc.? <br />The suggested change would allow the Council to determine the exact <br />area to be <br />used for outside storage <br />with any CUP which <br />might be. granted.. <br />Then 300 <br />Volkswagens, or 75 large <br />RVs, might fill the <br />same space. This <br />relieves the Building Inspector of <br />the thankless task <br />of measuring and <br />( counting. <br />He merely observes the <br />boundaries and notes <br />that everything is <br />within the <br />boundary. <br />The historical basis for the original one object or 150 square feet per <br />two -and -one-half acres standard was the result of one house per ten acres <br />zoning. If the agricultural land was ever developed on a one house per ten <br />acres basis, then one house might have two cars, a boat and a camper - <br />four objects or 600 square feet per ten acres. With 6 per 20 zoning now a <br />possibility to the north of my farm, along the Oakdale border, should this <br />be- changed to 24 objects or 3600 square feet per 20 acres? I believe the <br />simplest solution is an area definition. <br />2. The CUP site is six acres, but there has been disagreement as to the <br />conditions on the remaining 248 acres. Former Mayor Johnson stated at a <br />1992 Council meeting that the 248 acres are subject to higher restrictions <br />than the Agricultural zoning of 1 per 40. Dave Johnson stated that the city <br />should not have issued a building permit to my son Tom to build a house <br />( on 40 acres of the farm, even though it clearly complied with the <br />