Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />December 13, 2000 <br />Page 7 <br />Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Emly if it would meet his needs to combine Building #2 and the <br />structure to be torn down with an addition made to the western edge. He noted that <br />would allow the use of the existing slab. He asked about the distance between the vehicle <br />garage and house. Mr. Emly estimated 16 feet. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if constructing a covered walkway would meet the ordinance <br />requirements. Mr. Smyser stated he is unable to answer that question but could ask the <br />Building Official about that option. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Emly if the option he was suggesting would meet his needs. Mr. <br />Emly answered affirmatively. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if that option would save money rather than to construct a new <br />structure (estimated at $8,000). <br />Mr. Schilling stated the construction costs may be less <br />integrity due to the load on the roof. Mr. Emly stated <br />contractor who explained how a bearing wall could <br />separate building would look better than one t <br />sues of structure <br />hat question with the <br />ed. He stated he thinks a <br />he ogether. <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if the front faces are . 4 4'ned r. Emly stated they are. <br />Chair Schaps reviewed the ordina <br />indicates that a structure legally <br />same size. Chair Schaps stat <br />reducing the number of b> <br />greater. <br />elating to grandfathered buildings which <br />time of the ordinance may continue at the <br />appropriate to decrease the nonconformity by <br />om four to three even if the net square footage is <br />Mr. Smyser agre t sire to not increase the nonconformity. He stated it may be <br />possible to work o ion without the need for a variance and suggested this <br />application be table the next meeting to allow staff more time to work with Mr. Emly <br />and design a plan tha 'does not violate the ordinance. <br />Mr. Emly stated he will ask the contractor about attaching to the building he had planned <br />to remove. Mr. Rafferty suggested the contractor also be asked about the option of <br />replacing the roof trusses even if it results in having to reshingle the roof. <br />Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table consideration of the variance request of Marvin <br />Emly to construct a 28 -foot by 32 -foot pole barn on his ten acres at 590 62nd Street to <br />allow staff and the applicant to further investigate other options, and was supported by <br />Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 7 -0. <br />IPC. Udor, 375 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review <br />Staff presented the application by UDOR for an accessory storage building on their site. <br />The principal building approved in 1994 was originally 6,000 square feet and the City <br />