Laserfiche WebLink
NIINUTGS <br />PLANNING CONIiti(ISSION <br />OCTOBI';R 14, 2004 <br />Rheaume noted that some properties have gazebos or spa structures and <br />asked the impact on these extra buildings. The City Planner noted that the <br />Code allows each property to have a recreational accessory building in <br />addition to an accessory stoi<1ge shed. Gazebos and hot tub enclosures <br />would fall into the recreational building category. <br />Keis indicated that he did not want to place additional restrictions in the <br />Code if there is no need to do so. <br />The Planner indicated that the issue is accessory building clutter, and it <br />was felt that an oversized garage or a second garage would be a trade ofI <br />for the accessory shed. <br />I{nudsen suggested that if a property owner is seeking a CUP for an <br />oversized or second garage, that structure should be lame enough to <br />accommodate all storage needs and the accessory shed should then be <br />prohibited, Knudsen felt this was an aesthetic issue for the City. <br />Rheaume agreed, and felt that this would reduce the number of storage <br />sheds in the City. <br />Keis asked ifcurrent(y the Code allows for 1,500 square feet in garage <br />space by CUP plus a 120 square foot accessory storage shed. The City <br />Planner indicated that the Code is not clear on whether the 120 square feet <br />is included in the 1,500 or outside that amount. IIe suggested that airy <br />ordinance change would be drafted to clear up that issue. <br />Keis asked the size of a standard three-car garage. The Planner indicated <br />that a minimum of 200 square feet is needed per parking stall, however, <br />that figure is a little tight Therefore, the 1,000 square toot garage that is <br />allowed without a CUP would be an oversized three-car garage or a <br />functional four-car garage. <br />Keis suggested that people might want to retain accessory sheds i^ <br />addition to oversized garages so that ofl=season equipment, such as lawn <br />mowers during the winter months, could be stored in the accessory shed, <br />I{eis there was no need to amend the ordinance if there is no problem. <br />Barraclough felt that the amendment being discussed was proactive and <br />agreed it is preferable to get all storage under one roof than to have <br />separate storage sheds on a property. <br />Duray noted that oversized and second garages have become very popular <br />and the City is dealing with CUP requests all the time. He agreed there <br />was the need to be proactive and address the issue of sheds in these cases. <br />-5- <br />