2013_0708(part 2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B structure approximately 20’ x 24’. While hoping that square footage allowance was reasonable and not arbitrary, Mr. Paschke noted that in the past the structures had not been allowed, and staff’s rationale was to start small, and if it appeared there were many issues coming forward, and larger storage buildings were needed and the variance recourse was frequently sought, further review and amendment could be considered. However, Mr. Paschke noted that this would avoid any extremely large accessory structures on a site. Member Boguszewski spoke in support of staff’s rationale, opining that it seemed reasonable. Member Daire noted that the height allowance wa s close to two (2) storied; with Mr. Paschke concurring that it was similar to that for accessory structures in residential areas, or 15’ in height to the peak. Chair Gisselquist suggested that if multiple variances were being requested, at that time other cities could be surveyed or other models sought out. Mr. Paschke advised that there were not many pe ople seeking accessory structures for this type of application, but noted that staff had fielded a few requests, and this may serve to benefit those not hiring outside maintenance contractors but using their own staff and needing to accommodate those items on-site versus hauling them around. Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at appr oximately 7:44 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against. MOTION Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Daire to recommend to the City Council APPROVAL of the proposed TEXT AMENDMENTS to the Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures section of Table 1005-1 and 1006-1, and the inclusion of the requirements for accessory buildings in Section 1011.12E and F of the Property Performance Standards; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6, and recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 5, 2013. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried.