My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-23-97 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
04-23-97 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:55:28 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:58:06 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.
/
25
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
MINUT~S <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 23, 1997 <br />Council discussed screening, and the Planner pointed out that screening <br />means landscaping would have to be tall enough to provide screening so <br />that the shed could not be seen. <br />Fahey felt that sheds in the side yard will be tl~e exception, and that most <br />people will locate them in the rear yard. If a property owner wants the <br />shed in the side yard, in deference to the nei~hbors, the shed should be <br />screened. <br />There was no one from the general public present wishing to comment on <br />this matter. <br />Upon motion by Morelan, seconded by LaValle, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />LaValle was concerned that the screening being required would increase <br />the cost ofthe shed too much. LaValle indicated there may be cases <br />where the back yard is not an option, and the prope~ty owner must place <br />the shed in the side yard. LaVal(e felt the Council should have the ability <br />to look at each shed on a case-by-case basis, and did not feel the <br />requirements needed to be that cast in stone. <br />Morelan pointed out that the first draft of the ordinance said there would <br />be no sheds in the side yard. This ordinance is an attempt to be less <br />restrictive and find some creative ways to allow some thin~s. Fahey also <br />pointed outthatthe ordinance decreasesthe setback for accessory sheds <br />from ten feet to three feet. This action will eliminate a lot oFnon- <br />confarmin~ sheds which exist in the City <br />Morelan noted that under the CUP process, the Cowtcil will have the <br />ability to look at each individual situation. <br />LaValle was concerned ihat subsequent CouuciPs will not understand this <br />CounciPs position of looking at each individual situation. <br />Fahey noted that architectural compltibiliYy means a similar architectural <br />style. If a shed is screened adec~uately, there is no need for architectural <br />compatibility. <br />Pedersen stated that architectural compatibility means a similar roof line <br />and siding. <br />Morelan felt architectural compatibility should be left in the text <br />amendment since there will be no way to totally and permanently screen a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.