Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 26, 2000 <br />LaValle asked if the addition could be put on the east end of the building. <br />Valento reported that it could, but he wanted to maintain the front of the <br />building as is. He noted that once the paving and front yard work is <br />completed, the property will look good. <br />Fahey asked if there were any restrictions to having two buildings on one <br />property. The Planner replied that an accessory building is allowed as <br />long as it is less than 30% of the floor area of the principle building. <br />Fahey asked about the buildings being occupied by two different <br />businesses. The Planner replied that the ordinances do not regulate this, <br />and noted that there are many properties in the City with multiple tenants. <br />Morelan asked about additional parking requirements as a result of the <br />accessory building. The Planner replied that one additional parking space <br />will be required if the building is used for storage. However, parking <br />requirements would change depending on the use of the building. <br />The City Administrator noted that the Code limits accessory buildings to <br />areas behind the rear line of the principle building. Therefore, a variance <br />may be needed if the accessory building is placed in the side yard adjacent <br />to the principle building. The Planner thought that this portion of the <br />Code was limited to residential structures, but noted that perhaps the Code <br />did not distinguish. <br />Scalze suggested that the accessory building could be placed behind the <br />principle building and twisted somewhat eliminating the need for a <br />variance. <br />Valento felt that moving the building back and turning it would have a <br />negative impact on drainage. Valento also pointed out that the location of <br />the building as proposed just touches the Water Department easement. <br />Moving the building any further would cause it to encroach into the <br />easement area. <br />Morelan pointed out that if the Water Department acquired the easement <br />area, the accessory building would not meet setbacks. The Planner <br />pointed out that the building would become a legally non-conforming <br />building. <br />Scalze suggested that the variance application be tabled and that staff find <br />out what the Water Department's plans are for this easement. <br />5 <br />