CCP 01-22-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved 3. Implementation of the recommendations made in the interoffice department memorandums attached to the Planning Report as Exhibits G — K. The exception to this is the police substation request, which staff feels should be negotiated separately between Public Safety and the developer. 4. The wall sign on the south facade of the building may be permitted in place of the wall sign allowed, per Chapter 9 standards, on the west elevation along Old Highway 8. The applicant may choose which facade, west or south, to place the sign but shall not be permitted both. Schiferl stated that the Commission appreciates the applicant wiliness to change the landscape plan. 6 ayes, 0 nays. Motion Approved. Public Hearings, ZA2007-004 Zoning Code Amendment Impacting Sections 6-050 and 6-140 Regarding Accessory Structures in Excess of 40' in Height in the I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts. City staff is requesting consideration of an amendment to the I-1, Light Industrial and I-2, Heavy Industrial district standards. The amendment would allow, by Special Use Permit, accessory structures to exceed 40' in height subject to nine standards. The proposed amendment is to Section 6-050 (4) and 6-140 (7), which references the specially permitted uses section of the I-1 and I-2 district respectively, This request arose due to an existing property requesting that a 48' silo be permitted. A building permit was issued in March of 2006 for property located at 1565 1s' Avenue NW. The description of ork noted on the building, permit application was "concrete pads and bases, concrete block". hlcluded in the an set for this building permit was a silo, which is an accessory structure and typically requires zoning review and approval. No heights were noted on the plan and the Building Official approved the plan and released the permit without a zoning review. As such, the contractor proceeded to erect a 48' silo on the property. Not until a second permit was received for an additional silo did zoning staff understand the height implications of' the silo. Specifically, structures in excess of 40' are not allowed anywhere in the City (exceptions are water towers, Public utilities, and specially permitted uses in the MX and NWQ districts.). After consulting with the City Attorney, it was noted that the existing 48' silo is illegal and City staff could not legally release a building permit for a second such silo. However, staff felt a text amendment to allow such structures may be a reasonable solution for both the City and the property owner, who felt they proceeded in good faith with the first tower. Baker inquired how staff would define the location of "no further than ten feet from the principle structure." Gundlach replied that the intention was not that the entire structure be within ten feet, but that it could not be located twenty feet away from the building. Baker clarified that the near side of the structure must be within ten feet of the building. L-(oward asked if the width of the structure is addressed at all. Gundlach replied any application that is submitted for any exterior industrial improvement would have to undergo a site plan review, which makes sure that the floor area ratios arca met. She believes that review would limit the diameter for any silo. She added that the use of the accessory building would also have to meet the general health, safety and welfare standards. 4_1 'chii'crl wondered if a maximum size should be added. O'Brien stated that could be difficult to apply. Mann ked how many properties this would affect. Gundlach replied that approximately six properties would be affected and all the sites are currently developed. Page 8 of 12