2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 6 fairly good size for typical storage shed, approximately twice that of a residential shed, 248 based on the types of items that may be stored (e.g. snow plows or snow blowers, lawn 249 mowers, or landscaping or maintenance equipment). 250 Member Daire questioned if the proposed size would be sufficient to accommodate a 251 small forklift for transporting goods from the accessory building, even though the intent 252 was for storage in a Commercial District versus storing things intended for sale within the 253 principle structure but temporarily stored in the accessory building. 254 Mr. Paschke opined that a forklift should fit within the square footage and height 255 limitations, as well as lifts for changing light bulbs, etc.). Mr. Paschke advised that staff 256 had not given any grandiose thought to how the storage buildings could be utilized other 257 than for storage, and had been more concerned in providing storage for maintenance 258 equipment for office and commercial buildings using their own staff for lawn and snow 259 maintenance versus that of hiring a commercial vendor, and would therefore need 260 somewhere to store that equipment to avoid transporting it from off-site. While there was 261 nothing that excluded using the accessory building for storage of product, Mr. Paschke 262 clarified that there was only one (1) accessory structure allowed, so in multi-tenant 263 buildings (e.g. strip malls) there would be very limited storage for tenants; and suggested 264 a more common use would be by the building’s owner for storage of maintenance 265 equipment. 266 In the case of a restaurant, Member Daire questioned if the accessory building would be 267 separate from or include dumpster storage. 268 Mr. Paschke responded that, if a new restaurant wanted an accessory structure and 269 refuse/recycling areas in separate locations, staff would work with them; but clarified that 270 City Code would allow for only one (1) building with one (1) door. Mr. Paschke advised 271 that the building may include dumpster storage, but was also an allowable use. 272 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that if a building owner 273 required more storage square footage or height for the building, they would need to seek 274 that through the Variance Boar as a Conditional Use; and that should only be for a rare or 275 unique situation or need. 276 Member Boguszewski suggested the possibility of surveying other municipalities for their 277 rationale on accessory building square footage if that was feasible or even necessary; 278 however, he advised that he was not advocating for that, as long as there was a process 279 in place to accommodate any variances, even though agreeing they should be rare. 280 Mr. Paschke advised that staff had arrived at the 500 square feet as a minimal allowance 281 above and beyond that of the residential, two-store garage square footage of 480 square 282 feet for a structure approximately 20’ x 24’. While hoping that square footage allowance 283 was reasonable and not arbitrary, Mr. Paschke noted that in the past the structures had 284 not been allowed, and staff’s rationale was to start small, and if it appeared there were 285 many issues coming forward, and larger storage buildings were needed and the variance 286 recourse was frequently sought, further review and amendment could be considered. 287 However, Mr. Paschke noted that this would avoid any extremely large accessory 288 structures on a site. 289 Member Boguszewski spoke in support of staff’s rationale, opining that it seemed 290 reasonable. 291 Member Daire noted that the height allowance was close to two (2) storied; with Mr. 292 Paschke concurring that it was similar to that for accessory structures in residential 293 areas, or 15’ in height to the peak. 294 Chair Gisselquist suggested that if multiple variances were being requested, at that time 295 other cities could be surveyed or other models sought out. 296 Mr. Paschke advised that there were not many people seeking accessory structures for 297 this type of application, but noted that staff had fielded a few requests, and this may 298