Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION <br />NOVEMBER 6, 1989 <br />• PAGE 2 <br />Further discussion on the wording changes requested by the <br />Solid Waste Commission and the fact that they are planning to write <br />their own composting brochure followed. After more discussion <br />on yard waste collection, the Commission moved to another agenda <br />item. <br />PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FROM GARY AFFOLTER, 1892 HOLTON <br />Mr. Affolter, 1892 Holton, requested a Permitted Accessory Use <br />Permit to construct a shed attached to his garage for storage of <br />his boat during the winter months. He distributed his application <br />for Consideration of Planning Request Form with attachments describing <br />location and type of construction. Discussion ensued whether or <br />not the structure constitutes a shed or a garage addition and, <br />therefore, whether the Permitted Accessory Use Permit was necessary. <br />Planner Hoyt Taff agreed that the structure initially appears to <br />be an addition to an existing garage. However, she interpreted <br />it as a storage shed because it did not fit the definition of a <br />garage, it has a separate entrance and it is built specifically <br />for storing a boat. Therefore, a Permitted Accessory Use Permit <br />as well as a building permit, due to its size, is required. Barry <br />moved, seconded by Daykin, to approve the Permitted Accessory Use <br />Permit as requested based upon the description contained in his <br />October 31, 1989 Application for Consideration of Planning Request <br />and attachments; that a building permit would be required and should <br />• be taken out forthwith; and work on such structure be completed <br />within a year. A vote was taken. The following voted in favor <br />thereof: Barry, Daykin, Duncan, Finegan, Grittner and Nestingen <br />and the following voted against: Boche. (Boche was of the opinion <br />that a precedent would be set by approving a structure which is <br />attached to the garage as a Permitted Accessory Use.) The motion <br />carried. <br />DEFINITIONS OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE ZONING CODE, 9-1.02(1) <br />and 9-2.04, SUBDIVISION 2 b <br />Staff Planner Susan Hoyt Taff reviewed changes which would clarify <br />portions of the Zoning Code which are illogical, confusing and/or <br />contradictory relating to accessory structures. She recommended <br />exempting attached garages in an R-1 Zone from the Code requirement <br />that the accessory use not extend beyond the front of the principal <br />structure (9-2.04, Subdivision 1(f ). She described several examples <br />of this construction currently within the City. She suggested <br />a size limitation such as a four car garage be considered. Discussion <br />on these points followed. Boche moved the lay the item over but <br />the motion died for the lack of a second. <br />Black arrived at 8:33 P.M. <br /> After further discussion on whether the Commission wanted to address <br /> this issue at this time or request further staff clarification, <br />• Finegan moved (he relinquished the Chair to Black) seconded by <br />