Laserfiche WebLink
staff's concerns relating to this practice by eliminating that option. First, it confuses and <br />erodes the purpose of setting a maximum single accessory structure size. Second, these <br />very large pole buildings seem to foster illegal business activities on residential property. <br /> <br />On February 3, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted <br />unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Please find the enclosed exerpt of Section 9.11.02, Subd. 12, of City Code which shows <br />the revisions from the current ordinance. The vertical lines at the sides of the pages show <br />that revisions have been made to that section. Underlined text notes additions, and strike- <br />through text notes deletions. Also, enclosed is a copy of the proposed ordinance to <br />implement these revisions. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Planning Commission and City Staff recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Council Action: <br /> <br />Motion to: <br />Introduce the proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 9.11.02, Subdiv. 12 (Accessory <br />Buildings) of the City Code to allow metal accessory structures on properties two acres <br />and greater in size, and add design standards for accessory structures on parcels two to <br />five acres in size. <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator <br />City Attorney <br /> <br />City Council: 02/24/98 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />