Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 28, 2001 <br />EXISTING SINC,LE-FAMIL Y HO USE WITH A NEW ONE AND <br />REQUIRING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMIT A SECURITY <br />130ND TO ENSURE THAT THE OLD HOUSE WIL/. /3E REMOVED <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Anderson. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Anderson, Scalze, Fahey, Montour. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />AMEND Fahey opened the Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning <br />ZONING Code relative to accessory buildings on residential properties. He noted <br />CODE that the Code would now require a Conditional Use Permit for accessory <br />RELATING buildings under the same conditions that CUP's are required for accessory <br />TO garages. The amendment also allows recreational buildings up to 160 <br />ACCESSORY square feet in size without the need for a CUP. Therefore, under the <br />BUILDINGS amended ordinance a residential properrty could have an attached garage, a <br />"recreational building", and a shed up to 120 square feet in size as permitted <br />uses. However, if in addition to an attached garage, a property owner <br />requested an accessory garage or accessory building, a CUP would be required, <br />and in no case could the total square footage of these structures exceed 1,500 <br />square feet (excluding sheds). The Planning Commission has recommended <br />approval of the code amendment. <br />Three was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on this <br />matter. <br />LaValle asked about a bathhouse for a pool. The City Planner indicated that a <br />bathhouse could be considered a recreational building as Tong as storage was <br />not its sole purpose. <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2001-11-269 -ADOPT ING THF, AMENDMENT TO <br />THE ZONING CODE RELATIVE TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS <br />AI LOWED ON RESIDENTIAL. PROPERTIES AS RECOMMENDED I3Y <br />THE CITY PL ANNER AND THE PLANN/NG COMMISSION <br />'fhe foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, LaValle, Montour, Fahey, Anderson. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />TEMPORARY The City Planner reviewed the Planning Commission discussion relative <br />SIGN ISSUES to enforcement of the temporary sign ordinance, and their discussion that a <br />deposit should be required for temporary signs to ensure their removal on a <br />