Laserfiche WebLink
MINiJTLS <br />PUNNING CO1V[i~11SSTON <br />OCTOBPR 14, 2004 <br />Rheaume noted that some properties have gazebos or spa structures and <br />asked the impact on these extra buildings. The City Plamier noted that the <br />Code allows each property to have a recreational accessory building in <br />addition to an accessory storage 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 iu the <br />Code if there is no need to do so. <br />The Plam~er indicated that the issue is accessory building dotter, and it <br />was felt that an oversized garage or a second garage would be a trade off <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 large enough to <br />accommodate alt 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 Chis would reduce the number of storage <br />sheds i^ the City. <br />Keis asked if currently 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. He suggested that any <br />ordinance change would be drafted to clear up that issue. <br />Keis asked d1e 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 foot garage that is <br />allowed without a CLTP 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 in <br />addition to oversized garages so that off-season equipment, such as Lawn <br />mowers during the winter months, could be stored in the accessory shed. <br />Keis 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 />-~- <br />