Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> P1Ii4UTES <br /> ~(ColYit~du~ci 1 <br /> January 24, 19G0 <br /> Councilman Fahey asked whether the section on page 15 dealing with <br /> accessory buildings limited the number of accessory buildings that <br /> could be constructed on a property. Nielson stated that accessory <br /> buildings were limited on page 16 of the Ordinance to one garage and <br /> one shed. Additional buildings vaould require a conditional use permit. <br /> Item C3 on page 15 states that a lot of record existing upon the effective <br /> date of this proposed Ordinance, which does not meet the requirements <br /> of the Ordinance may be used for single family dwelling purposes <br /> provided it meets 70°6 of the requirements of the Ordinance. <br /> Brad Nielson stated that this provision allows a propertyowner to make <br /> reasonable use of his property. <br /> The Attorney stated that this provision is a variance in itself. <br /> Nir. Nielson replied that it was, but the propertyowner would have <br /> to meet setback requirements. <br /> Councilman Fahey stated that this provision is an automatic variance. <br /> Fahey stated that there is provision on page 66 of the proposed <br /> ordinance which allows for variances due to non-economic hardships. <br /> Fahey stated that this provision on page 66 gave the Council more <br /> flexibility. <br /> fir. PJielson was concerned that everyone requesting variances <br /> would not be treated fairly if the Council only had the provision <br /> for variances as stated on page 6G of the proposed Ordinance. <br /> Councilman Def3ace commented that the conditions in each situation <br /> are different, and the Council would want to consider the conditions. <br /> Councilwoman Sca1ze also stated that the Council should look at each <br /> request fora variance separately. <br /> Councilman Fahey suggested that paragraph C3 on page 15 be deleted <br /> and the word "area" should be added under paragraph C on page 66. <br /> Nielson stated that he would do this and would also rewrite the <br /> paragraph on page 6G in question as the Council felt the whole <br /> paragraph was poorly worded. <br /> The next item discussed was the section regulating fences. Nielson <br /> stated that the section on fences in the proposed Zoning Ordinance <br /> was more restrictive than 'the fence ordinance recently adopted by <br /> the City. Nielson stated that his proposed fence regulations <br /> will include requirements far the finished side of a -fence to Face <br /> the adjacent property and that his requirements will include the <br /> ly day time limit for the owner to repair a damaged fence. Nielson <br /> vain also add the provision regulating the space between fence boards. <br /> Nielson stated that the section on fences in the proposed Zoning <br /> Ordinance allows a fence in a front yard to be only 3 to 3 1/2 feet <br /> high so that a fence will not block vision. The fence could be taller <br /> than the 3 to 3 1/2 feet at a point 1/2 the depth of the primary <br /> building on the property. <br /> Page -4- <br /> <br />