10-27-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINi7T1'/S CITY COiJNCII, OCTOI3TR 27, 2004 Blesener asked about Punning Commission discussion of the issue of accessory storage sheds. The City Planner indicated that the Commission has had some discussion about potentially restricting properties with oversized garages from the ability to have a storage shed. It was noted that no action has been taken by the Commission, and they will be discussing the issue again at their November meeting. Fahey suggested that the Pugleasa request either be tabled pending this discussion by the Planning Commission, or denied. Fahey stated that he did not support a garage over 1,000 square feet on this property. If the Council is willing to go to 1,120 square feet, then that same right should be offered to other property owners in the City. LaValle stated that he did not support an ordinance amendment restricting properties with oversized garages from having storage sheds because of the resulting enforcement problems for the City. Allan agreed, noting that properties would be sold and new owners would not be aware of the restriction. Allan indicated that she also agreed with Fahey, that if the Council is inclined to allow this garage to be 1,120 square feet in size, then the Code should be changed giving all property owners the same right. Blesener noted Heat a property owner can have a garage up to 1,500 square feet by CUP. LaValle indicated that this particular property is too small to support a large garage. The City Planner indicated that Hie City's past practice has been to not approve requests for large garages on small lots. Fahey pointed out that the City Planner has analyzed the request and indicates that it does not meet the criteria under which other large garages were approved. Fahey stated that it was his opinion that this request should be denied unless the Code is changed to allow garages up to 1,120 square feet if there is no storage shed on the property. Montour noted that there are ^o criteria in the ordinance tying the size of the lot to the size of the garage. Montour indicated, however, that he agrees that the garage is too large for this lot. The City Planner noted that the issue of lot size is tied to the ordinance criteria related to compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Allan noted that other properties that where approved for large garages were 2],000 square feet in size or larger. This lot is 15,000 square feet and aL~eady has a gazebo, large driveway, and a lot of impervious surface.