03-13-08 Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MAY 23, 2007 not accessory buildings. The purpose of a trash enclosure is to screen trash receptacles. McGraw noted that the purpose of the current accessory structure on the Temo property is for trash enclosure, and it was not being used as such. Maietta stated that this was correct, his dumpster is outside. Maietta indicated that when he recently purchased the property, the accessory building was marketed as a garage. The City Administrator indicated that it is a code violation to store the trash dumpster outside. Blesener asked the parking requirement for this property. The City Planner stated that his estimation is that their current parking meets the Code requirements. The proposed garage and gazebo would take up some of this parking. The City Administrator pointed out that at the Planning Commission meeting, John Grant, Condit Street, appeared and expressed concern about the number of accessory structures on the Temo property as well as the visibility of those structures from his property. McGraw and Allan indicated that they looked at the property and felt the existing trees screened the existing accessory building from the Condit neighborhood. McGraw indicated that he would like to work with Temo Sunrooms, but expressed concern that the original trash enclosure was converted into a garage. He noted that this resulted in a code violation in that the trash receptacle is now stored outdoors. McGraw acknowledged that other than that, the property is well cared for. Blesener indicated that he was willing to allow one accessory building on the property that would include a trash storage area. He would also support the display of the gazebo in the back of the property. Montour noted the comment in the Planner's report that the intended use of this property is high quality office and office-warehouse space. Montour noted that the Temo Sunroom use is retail. He also noted that building has been modified to include sunroom areas on the front for display purposes. Montour stated that he, too, supported one accessory building on the site that incorporated a trash enclosure. He would also support the gazebo as it compliments what was done with the front of the building. Montour stated that given the gazebo is not a permanent structure, that the City allow its display for a certain period of time each year, similar to the displays that were allowed for Joe's Sporting Goods. Allan asked if an interim use permit should be issued for the gazebo. Maietta stated that should he ever sell this property, he would take the gazebo with him. 11