Laserfiche WebLink
>IINL iZS <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 23. 2001 <br />EXISTING SING? F -F. MIL Y HOUSE WITH A ,VEW ONE ,-IVD <br />REQUIRING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMIT A SECURITY <br />.BOND TO ENSURE THAT THE OLD HOUSE WILL BE REMOVED <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Anderson. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Anderson, Scalze, Fahey, Montour. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />AMEND Fahey opened the Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning <br />ZONING Code relative to accessory buildings on residential properties. He noted <br />CODE that the Code would now require a Conditional Use Permit for accessory <br />RELATING buildings under the same conditions that CUP's are required for accessory <br />TO garages. The amendment also allows recreational buildings up to 160 <br />ACCESSORY square Feet in size without the need for a CUP. Therefore, under the <br />BUILDINGS amended ordinance a residential property could have an attached garage. a <br />"recreational building", and a shed up to 120 square feet in size as permitted <br />uses. However, if in addition to an attached garage, a property owner <br />requested an accessory garage or accessory building, a CUP would be required <br />and in no case could the total square footage of these structures exceed 1,500 <br />square feet (excluding sheds). The Planning Commission has recommended <br />approval of the code amendment. <br />Three was no one present from the general public wishing to commem on this <br />matter. <br />LaValle asked about a bathhouse for a pool. The City Planner indicated that a <br />bathhouse could be considered a recreational building as long as storage was <br />not its soie purpose. <br />Mrs. Scaize introduced :he following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION V0.:001 -11 -269 - ADOPTING THE ,AMENDMENT TO <br />THE ZONING CODE RELATIVE TO .ACCESSORY BUILDINGS <br />.ALLOWED ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES: AS RECOMMENDED BY <br />THE CITY PLANNER AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />The lore:oind resolution was duiv seconded by LaVaile. <br />Ayes (5) Scaize, LaVaile, Montour, Fahey, Anderson. <br />Nags (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />1E:1,1PORA.RY The City Planner reviewed :he Planning. Commission discussion relative <br />ro enforcement of the :emporary sign ordinance. and their discussion :hat a <br />deposit should be required for :emporary signs to ensure their removal on a <br />SIGN ISSUES <br />Page 57 <br />