Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Nixt expressed that he is reluctant to allow a structure to be closer to the property <br />line than the home if it isn't architecturally compatible with the home. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nixt recommends modifying the ordinance to state that any accessory building <br />placed closer to the front property line than the home must be architecturally compatible with the <br />home, regardless of lot size, or a variance would be required. This design requirement already <br />applies to properties two acres or less, regardless of the location on the property. Any structures <br />not meeting these requirements would require a variance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kociscak asked what would happen if the property was subdivided after an <br />accessory structure was erected by granting of a variance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated it would become lawful non-conforming. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />There was none. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Watson, to close the public hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Watson, Kociscak and Van <br />Scoy. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Brauer, Johnson and Reeve. <br /> <br />The public hearing closed at 7:40 p.m. <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at 7:40 <br />p.m. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Watson, to recommend that City <br />Council adopt the proposed ordinance to amend the setbacks and heights for accessory buildings <br />with the above proposed modifications. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked about the striking of Subd. 8. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik stated the City Building Official indicated there is no <br />building code preventing an accessory building from being closer than five feet eave to eave <br />from the principal building. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy stated he understood it to be a fire safety concern. Fire can leap a lesser <br />distance and consume the other structure. With a detached structure there are not firewall <br />requirements like there are with attached garages. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/December 5, 2002 <br /> Page 6 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />