03-28-90 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL March 28, 1990 The City Planner noted that the Council would control such situations since property owners would have to apply for subdivision of property and would not have to approve a subdivision where the road frontage is inadequate. Blesener agreed with the Planner°s recommendation that the City require that the construction of the accessory building be similar to that of the principle building. Mr. Johnson, representing Fuel Economy, pointed out that their principle building is constructed of steel with concrete and brick on the front. Fuel Economy is proposinq that the accessory buildings match their existing steel buildings. The Planner stated that a concern is that properties would be filled up with pre-engineered bildings. The thought behind requiring the accessory buildings to be constructed of the same materials as the principle building is to encourage the highest building quality that we can. Collova was concerned that the text amendment would allow two buildings of the same size on one property. Collova pointed out that the City has denied similar proposals in the past. The DeBace proposal on Country Drive was pointed out as an example. The Planner stated that this did not concern him as long as the buildings are owned and operated by the same company. Council suggested that the City Planner research the effect the text amendment he is proposing would have, specifically looking at past similar proposals which the Council denied. Fahey asked if the Planner is proposing the text amendment apply to the I-P District as well as Industrial District. The Planner replied that that was correct. There were no other comments from the general public on the Fuel Economy proposal. Upon motion by Fahey, seconded by Blesener, the public hearing was closed. Page 6