Laserfiche WebLink
September 27, 1976 Page 14 <br />M (Shelquist) to leave the accessory building size at 145 square feet per <br />existing code and continue to allow special use permits for buildings over <br />that size. <br />This motion was not seconded and died. <br />Mr. Lauterbach stated that since there were three requests for oversized <br />buildings there is a need for extra storage space and it is the Council's <br />duty to pass laws that provide for what the people want. He felt the <br />Council could make the 216 sq. ft. the standard or have two sizes of <br />buildings, one for small lots and 216 sq. ft. for larger lots. Councilmember <br />Baumgartner stated that accessory buildings can't take up more than 25% of <br />the rear yard. <br />Mayor Pickar stated he doesnot feel that 216 square feet, at this time, <br />would be out of line and would rather see the various equipment inside. <br />Councilmember Shelquist stated the Council went through this when the <br />garage size was increased from a two car to a three car garage. Mayor <br />Pickar stated he doesn't believe the Council will see the situation grow <br />and grow as was mentioned. <br />Bob Lestina, 6939 Pleasant View Drive suggested putting a limit of 1% or <br />2% square footage of the lot for the accessory building size. Mayor Pickar <br />stated that this would be less than the 25% limit. <br />MSP (Baumgartner - Rowley) to adopt Ordinance No. 253 increasing the maximum <br />size of accessory buildings from the present 145 square feet to 216 square <br />feet and anything over this be by special use permit. <br />Attorney Meyers stated this motion requires a 4/5 vote. Mayor Pickar <br />questioned the size of the doors allowed. Councilmember Baumgartner <br />stated the intent is that an accessory building is not a garage. Attorney <br />Meyers suggested that the definition of accessory buildings in the ordinance <br />be amended. Councilmember Baumgartner stated that at this time we are dis- <br />cussing an accessory building size and if the Council feels there is a need <br />to define an accessory building it could be done at another time. <br />Mrs. Lestina suggested that the ordinance differentiate between existing <br />and new buildings because some people that have put up new garages have not <br />torn down the old buildings or altered the doors. Attorney Meyers stated <br />that it is possible these old buildings are grandfathered into the ordinance. <br />A roll call vote was requested: <br />Councilmember Hodges - aye <br />Councilmember Baumgartner - aye <br />Councilmember Rowley - aye <br />Councilmember Shelquist - nay <br />Mayor Pickar - aye <br />Referring back to BAUER WELDING & METAL FABRICATORS INC. INDUSTRIAL <br />DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, MOUNDS VIEW INDUSTRIAL PARK. Mr. Benson stated <br />they had reviewed the document and are concerned that several items <br />refer to public improvements and are not directly applicable to their <br />4 ayes <br />1 nay <br />1 <br />