Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning, Commission <br />Jan. 10, 1935 <br />1 <br />Ryan PUD Mr. DeLonais recommended adoption of the Ryan industrial Park PI11) <br />proposal. <br />Motion seconded by Mrs. Timmons. <br />Motion carried 3 — 0. <br />Text The Planner presented for approval a text amendment: which eliminates <br />Amendment the word "garage" in reference to accessory buildings. Mr. Grittman <br />Accessory explained that the ordinance referred to both garages and accessory <br />Buildings buildings and this was confusing. The amendment simply cleans up <br />the language so that the ordinance is consistent. The Planner <br />stated that garages are accessory buildings. • <br />Mrs. Kingsbury pointed out that a portion of the ordinance was <br />eliminated which referred to a five foot setback from the lot lines. <br />The Planner stated that the intent may have been to make all <br />accessory buildings subject to setback. The Planner stated that he <br />would check this out. <br />At this point in the meeting, Mr. DeLonais asked to be excused. <br />The Planner reported that the text amendment says that not more <br />than one accessory building per single family dwelling is allowed. <br />There was confusion before in the ordinance as it referred to garages <br />and accessory buildings. The Planner stated that the ordinance does <br />not govern sheds that are less than 120 square feet, however. Also, <br />if more than one accessory building is desired, a conditional use <br />permit would have to he granted. <br />Mrs. Timmons pointed out that the text amendment is just a clarification <br />of the wording of the ordinance. <br />Some members on the Commission expressed concern that under this <br />ordinance only one accessory building is allowed per single Family <br />home. <br />Mrs. Timmons recommended approval of the text amendment regarding <br />accessory buildings. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Perlinger. <br />Motion denied 3 — 4. <br />Ayes (3) Timmons, Perl.inger, Kingsbury. <br />Nayes (4) Costa, Davison, French, Herkenhoff. <br />Mrs. Timmons pointed out that those voting against were opposed to <br />the existing ordinance. Timmons stated that her motion was not <br />changing the ordinance that already existed, but merely clarifying it <br />Page —9— <br />