Laserfiche WebLink
y7n~UT1:S <br />CLCy Counci.l <br />Feb. 27, 7.9£35 <br />'Chunder l~ay <br />Addi.Cion <br />(Cont.) <br />Ordi.nance <br />Pert:ai.ni.n~ <br />To Def~_niti.on <br />Of Gara~;es & <br />ACCf'.SSOY~f <br />Bui.].din~s <br />A~;enda <br />Item i~lo. 11 <br />'Che forego~ing resol.uCion was duly seconded by Mr. Collova. <br />Ayes (5) Nardini, Collova~ Scal-r.e, Fa11ey, l~lesener. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resol.ution declared adopted. <br />This resoluti.on appears in Resoluti.on Aook No. 12, Page £I£3. <br />Mr, Pahey asl<ed the Attorney hoo~ he i.s proceedi.ng with the name <br />change of one of the str.eets i.n Tliunder ~3ay Add~it:i.on. Th~ Att:orney <br />repli.ed that: he wi.11 be woricing on this. <br />The P1~nner. submitCed to the Council a proposed ox~di.nance whicl~ <br />would handle the concerns of the Counci.l as r.ep,ards gar.ages and <br />accessory bui.l<Li.n~;s. <br />Mr. Pahey stated thaT. ~s he understands it if someone hacl a tuctc- <br />under ,n,ara;;e, they eould request a condi.Ci.onal. use permi.t f:or ain <br />add:i.tiona]. garage. <br />Mr. I3lesener. questi.oned ~.i.L Item 5:i.n the ord:i.nance would handl.e this. <br />'The Planner sCated that he and the Ci.ty ACtorney have looked at <br />add:i.ti.onal woreli.np, that: caould take care of i.t. <br />i~irs. ical.ze commented that the proUlem arose when a past resident of <br />I.,i.ttl.e Canada wanted to exptind hi.s busi.ness and added a gacage <br />each Ci.me he wanted to do th~i.s. <br />Mr. Pahey sCat:ecl that a condiCional. use permit shoulcl be parC of <br />the requi.rement for. an addi.ti.onal ~;ara~;e so that Clte City can see <br />wher.e a property is goi.n~ in relaC~i.on to the nei.ghbors. <br />T9rs. Nardini. asked i.[ the ordi_nance. clarif:ies the fact that only <br />one accessory buildin~ woul.d be allowed. <br />Mr. Collova stated that he lil:es the i.dea of the condi.tional use <br />permit as mosC of the time an addi.t:i.onal. gara~;e i.s used i.f there <br />is a home occupation i.nvolved and the City should rev~i.ew this. <br />7'he 1?lanner agreed Y.t~at too much accessory space on a lot t:ends to <br />Ue used f:or home occupations. The Pl.anner stated,} h~at t:he intent <br />0 cot^rection ~f ~h • r I'_ ance ~is to remove the ft~er pzra e naau~~:FttsP3~e~_ `~-a <br />Res. 85-3-101 $a~~'~~l~ag-~w~e~~=se~e~~.~~a~ekan~~`a~'~b~~~~a~~t e ordi.nance is al.so <br />tr.yi.ng to geC to a reasonable arnoi.mt of square Pootage for accessory <br />space on a 1ot. <br />Nlr. Fahey scatect that the ordinance has to get bactc to what a gaxa~e <br />i.s, A pr.operty owner can have one ~arage wiChout a concliCional use <br />Page -16- <br />