Electric City leaning towards bigger is better

Proponents of larger accessory buildings in Electric City made some headway at a city planning commission meeting a week ago.

It is expected that the planning commission will recommend to the city council that zoning be changed to allow 1,728 square foot buildings up to 26 feet in height. Other details such as whether the siding will have to match the homeowner’s house are still to be decided.

A healthy showing of proponents showed up at the meeting and voiced their interests. Some voiced their concerns.

The pros and cons of the issue are almost equally divided as was noted in a city survey about accessory buildings taken in September. Some 195 residents returned the survey.

The survey asked whether the resident was in favor or opposed to no size limit on accessory buildings. Thirty-four percent were in favor of unlimited size while 64 percent were opposed.

Sixty percent indicated they were in favor of accessory buildings over 850 square feet (the current restriction). Thirty-six percent were in favor of restrictions.

When asked if they were in favor or opposed to accessory buildings larger than the person’s homes, 45 percent said they were in favor, and 54 percent were opposed.

When asked if they were in favor or opposed to changing the city code to allow larger sized accessory buildings, 56 percent were in favor, compared to 43 percent opposed.

When asked how valuable they thought maintaining open space was, 16 percent said not valuable, 31 percent said somewhat valuable and 51 percent said highly valuable.

There’s been a push by some local residents for over a year to allow larger accessory buildings. It appears that a request for larger buildings will find its way to the city council for a vote sometime soon.

Notes sent along with the return of the survey were also varied.

One person wrote: “I don’t think accessory buildings should block someone’s nice view of the lake or Coulee walls. In those instances maybe neighbor’s permission should be needed.”

Another response: “Buildings larger than primary homes and in view of other homes should be a case by case basis. You people don’t pay our taxes. We the taxpayers should have as say what goes on our property that we own and pay taxes on.”

Another comment: “There may be areas where larger accessory buildings would be appropriate but not in residential districts where homes are close together.”

This response came in: “There are several problems with these larger structures. They block views, block sunlight in windows and for gardens; people use them as shops and then you hear engine noises. People might have mellow lights on their houses, but for additional structures they put bright lights on the that glare in their neighbor’s windows. I have a neighbor that has a large shop/garage and still parks his project vehicles outside his shop creating a parking atmosphere. In addition Electric City isn’t the prettiest town around and has the feel of an industrial/storage park, making the neighborhood into a storage park instead of a residential area. This storage park feel makes it a less desirable place to live. Also why spend money to change the code when we didn’t have enough money to spend on police.”