01-22-97 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 22~ 1997 Scalze felt that a 3 foot setback was giving property owners a lot of latitude, and stated that she would only support the 3 foot setback if sheds were restricted to rear yards. Morelan felt in a lot of cases it would make more sense to place a shed in the side yard rather than the rear yard. The City Planner reported that his office has written a couple of ordinances for other cities which restricts shed placement to be no closer to the front than the mid-point of the house. Scalze felt that in neighborhoods where houses are placed close together, it was preferable to have sheds in rear yards rather than alongside homes. Fahey suggested sheds be restricted to no closer than the rear of the house. The City Administrator commented that some of the existing sheds would not comply with this restriction. However, the restriction to behind the structure would be better aesthetically over the long-term. Scalze suggested that the Council try this and see if it works. Fahey, Pedersen, LaValle, and Scalze agreed that the ordinance should restrict sheds to behind the rear line of the structure. The Administrator asked if the Council wanted to restrict placement of all accessory buildings to behind the rear of the principle structure. This would include sheds over 120 square feet, accessory garages, gazebos, etc. Council agreed that was their intention; however, indicated that the ordinance should provide for exception from this requirement by Conditional Use Permit. Council felt there may be some situation where it made more sense to place an accessory building in a side yard. Under a Conditional Use Permit process, the property owner would not have to prove hardship in order to be exempted from this provision. The Planner agreed this was possible and stated that the Conditional Use Permit process would set up conditions under which the Council would consider 9