My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-25-90 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
04-25-90 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:00:47 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:53:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 25, 1990 <br />ACCES5oRY Fahey pointed out that the Planning Commission <br />BUILDING SIZE recommended approval of a text amendment increasing <br />IN INDUSTRIAL the amount of accessory building area allowed in the <br />DISTRICT Industrial District. <br />Scalze pointed out the Planner's recommendation that <br />the exterior of the accessory building be required to <br />match the principle building. <br />Blesener asked how the text amendment would have <br />effected previous requests, for example, the Bob DeBace <br />request for accessory building on the Capital City <br />Glass site. <br />The Planner replied that the issue that would arise is <br />if a property owner could build an accessory building <br />and then lease it out to another business. The Planner <br />pointed out that the City is currently faced with this <br />enforcement issue, therefore, adoption of the proposed <br />text amendment will not change that situation. <br />Blesener stated that adoption of the proposed text <br />amendment will not make the problem any better. <br />The Planner pointed out that the City requires a PUD in <br />order to have multiple uses on a particular site. <br />Fahey pointed out that the ordinance currently limits <br />accessory buildings to 30% of the principle building. <br />The City Planner reported that the issue came up in the <br />form of a variance request by Fuel Economy for <br />additional accessory buildings. Fuel Economy currently <br />has accessory buildings that equal 38% of the size of <br />their principle building, and they are asking for two <br />additional accessory buildings which will bring that <br />amount up to 75%. The Planner indicated that in the <br />Industrial District storage is considered a principle <br />use. <br />The Planner informed the Council that one impact of the <br />proposed text amendment is that there are cases where <br />additional storage area could be added to a principle <br />building, however, the property owner may request an <br />accessory building in order to get around the Appendix <br />E requirements. <br />Council discussed this issue and felt that the matter <br />should be tabled for a month in order to give the Fire <br />Chief and Building Inspector an opportunity to look at <br />that issue. <br />Page 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.