Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 26, 1997 <br />The City Planner replied that farm buildings have not <br />been limited as to placement other than setback <br />requirements. The Planner indicated that references to <br />farm buildings are a carry -over from the original <br />ordinance, and have probably become irrelevant. The <br />Planner suggested that references to farm buildings <br />could probably be deleted from the ordinance without <br />causing any problems. <br />Scalze expressed concern with Section 903.020.D.2.b.i. <br />through iv. Scalze felt that this section did not lay <br />out the conditions under which a Conditional Use Permit <br />would be granted to allow an accessory building or shed <br />closer to the front line of the lot than the rear <br />building line of the principal structure. Scalze felt <br />there would be circumstances where the visibility of <br />the accessory building or shed from the street would be <br />objectionable. Scalze felt there should be more <br />conditions as part of this section, and not use only <br />the fact that someone has a large yard in considering a <br />Conditional Use Permit. <br />The Planner pointed out that the City Council would act <br />as the architectural review board in considering CUP <br />requests for shed placement closer to the front line of <br />the lot than the rear building line. There would be <br />some objectivity in this review, and the Council can <br />make reasonable findings in acting to approve or deny a <br />CUP request. The Planner also noted that if a shed is <br />screened from the right -of -way, than perhaps the shed's <br />architectural appearance is not an issue. <br />Pedersen felt the CUP requirements were too vague. <br />Morelan felt screening a shed from view from the public <br />right -of -way was difficult given that plant materials <br />would lose their leaves during the winter and fences <br />are typically shorter than sheds. Morelan suggested <br />perhaps the City should require the architectural <br />appearance to match the house, otherwise the shed would <br />have to be screened from view. <br />Pedersen felt the allowing a shed which is a cute <br />replica of the house was not the answer. <br />Morelan felt the primary issue with having a shed in <br />the required side yard was the appearance of the shed. <br />Pedersen felt sheds adjacent to the front of a house <br />detracted from the streetscape. Pedersen felt the CUP <br />process outlined in the ordinance left the issue wide <br />4 <br />Page 28 <br />