01/03/2001 Env Bd Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

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