Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />DECEMBER 15, 2004 <br />Montour felt that if a property owner is requesting a CLJP for a large <br />garage, that garage should be sized appropriately to eliminate the need for <br />a ] 0' by 12' storage shed. Montour noted that the City looks at the issues <br />of compatibility with the neighborhood as well as matching the oversized <br />garage to the house in considering requests for CUP's. Montour felt that <br />inmost cases these small storage sheds would not meet the criteria <br />considered for the oversized garages. <br />Allan felt that the prohibition on sheds for properties with oversized <br />garages would help clean up the property by limiting the number of <br />structures on the lot. <br />LaValle felt there would bean enforcement problem. 'Blesener and Allan <br />agreed. Fahey agreed pointing out Yhat a property owner may call the City <br />Center to ask about regulations for small storage sheds without divulging <br />that they have an oversized garage, and would be informed that the ] ZO <br />square foot storage shed is allowed. <br />Montour pointed out that a property owner could also improperly place a <br />small storage shed and violate setback requirements. Montour felt that the <br />Council should act on the ordinance amendment as they feel appropriate <br />and not based on whether or not there will be code violations. Fahey <br />agreed, noting that the City could have enforcement issues with every <br />ordinance. <br />LaValle pointed out that as properties change hands, small storage sheds <br />will appear on these Tots that have the CUP's for oversized garages. Fahey <br />suggested that the ordinance may be sotmewhat self-policing given Che <br />10% limitation. Fahey indicated he understands the concern about <br />multiple buildings on a property. <br />Montow' pointed out that as the ordinance stands he could have a spa <br />building, an oversized garage, a small storage shed and his house on one <br />lot. <br />The City Planner agreed that there may be an additional enforcement issue <br />if this ordinance is adopted, but felt the issue would not be much different <br />than it is now. The Planner felt that the ordinance amendment improved <br />the City's ability to coordinate development on single-family lots. <br />There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on <br />this matter. <br />Upon motion by Blesener, seconded by Allan, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />C <br />