Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Hendriksen stated that if this issue was to proceed the way the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission requested, 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's recommendation on this issue and he would have to approach City Council as a <br />citizen. <br /> <br />Case #6: Review of City Code Regulations for Accessory Structures and <br /> Exterior Storage of Unlicensed Vehicles <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated there are two unresolved issues, the first being the <br />inconsistency in City Code wherein the basis for lot size differs at the time of platting from what it <br />is at the time of code enforcement. The second issue concerns the outside storage of unlicensed <br />vehicles. Ms. Frolik 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 making accessory structures more <br />affordable with 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 exter/or storage of any <br />unlicensed vehicles. She aim stated that comments from City staff suggest possibly a 250-ft, <br />setback or performance zone for pole buildings. She added that the City does not presently require <br />a poured floor for pole buildings. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated he reviewed the present performance standards with Building <br />Inspector Glyn 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 specffied performance zone, then the pole building <br />would be required 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 standar& <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 /> <br />Commissioner Terry stated that with the present lot size requirements, they do not qualify for a <br />pole building. <br /> <br />Ms. McKay stated that a neighbor put up a pole barn last year on the s~me size lot. She inquired <br />why he didn't have 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 building 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 & Zoning Commission/3/2/93 <br /> Page 6 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />