Laserfiche WebLink
! <br />I <br /> <br />Commission& Hendriksen stated that if this issue was to proceed the way the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission ~equested, it would have been appropriate to take it to City Council. However, he <br />stated it was obvious that City Council was not going to take the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission'~ recommendation on this issue and he would have to approach City Council as a <br />citizen. <br /> <br />~1 Case #6: Review of City Code Regulations for Accessory Structures and <br /> Exterior Storage of Unlicensed Vehicles <br />~ · Zoning Adm~fnistrator Frolik stated there are two unresolved issues, the first being the <br /> inconsistencyrin City Code wherein the basis for lot size differs at the time of platting from what it <br /> is at the time bf code enforcement. The second issue concerns the outside storage of unlicensed <br /> vehicles. Ms.ttFrolik stated the. Commission recommended, to City. Council retaining, that. provision. <br /> that would allOw for the exterior storage of one unlicensed vehicle. She advised that City Council <br /> changed it to no outside storage of unlicensed vehicles with a 3-2 vote. Resolution of both of these <br /> issues requires a 4/5 Council vote. Ms. Frolik stated that by malting accessory structures more <br /> affordable wiffi the proposed change reducing the threshold from 2.5 to 2.0 acres, the City should <br /> be comfortable in adopting an ordinance that does not allow for the exterior storage of any <br /> unlicensed v4hi¢les. She also stated that comments from City staff suggest possibly a 250-ft. <br /> setback or peffonmnce zone for pole buildings. She added that the City does not presently require <br /> a poured floo~ for pole buildings. <br /> <br /> Commissions Deemer stated he reviewed the present performance standards with Building <br /> Inspector Gl ~>~n Huff, and he presented their suggestions regarding revisions and deletions. He <br /> added that he Was not in favor of increasing the setback. <br /> <br /> Ms. Frolik stated that with the present 10-ft. side yard setback, there is a potential for looking out <br /> one's windoW, into their neighbor's pole barn. She explained that with the proposed amendment, <br /> if a pole building were constructed within a specified performance zone, then the pole building <br /> would be reqdired to upgrade with soffit, facia, eaves and shingle roof. <br /> <br />Commissioners Deemer and Hendriksen stated they opposed the 250-ft. setback or performance <br />zone standardi <br /> <br />Cindy McKay., 7855 - 157th Avenue N.W. - stated she and her husband now have a 2.3 acre lot. <br />They do not qualify but have applied for a permit to build a pole barn to store a boat, and do not <br />see any purpose in spending a lot of money to meet these performance standards <br />Commissioner Terry stated that with the present lot size requirements, they do not qualify for a <br />pole building.', <br /> <br />Ms. McKay s~ted that a neighbor put up a pole barn last year on the same size lot. She inquired <br />why he didn'tlhave to comply. She felt that either she should be able to build one or he should <br />have to take his down. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bawden stated he would like to be informed as to what happened, and Ms. Frolik <br />stated the buil4ting permit was issued erroneously. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bawden stated that two wrongs do not make a right. <br /> <br />Commissioner Terry suggested that Ms. McKay consider legal action if she felt a mistake had been <br />made. <br /> <br />Planning & <br /> <br />Zoning Commission/3/2/93 <br />Page 6 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />