Laserfiche WebLink
MLVIPC!S <br />Planning Commission <br />Jan. 10, 1985 <br />Accessory <br />Buildings <br />(Cont.) <br />Mr. Costa stated that there are a lot of large logs in the City and <br />felt that one accessory building was not practical for some of these <br />large lots. The Planner pointed out that an accessory building can <br />be up to 1,000 square feet in size. <br />Mr. French stated that he objected to the 15 foot height restriction <br />in the ordinance. <br />Timmons pointed out that these are concerns about the original <br />ordinance and the text amendment was just a clarification of the <br />ordinance that is already in effect. Timmons stated that the Building <br />Inspector has requested this clarification. <br />Timmons stated that she does not remember this ordinance causing <br />a problem and she was not in favor of spending tax money to rewrite <br />an ordinance until there is a problem with it. <br />Mr. Costa stated that there has not been a problem, because people <br />build accessory buildings without a building permit. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff suggested that without the text amendment, the code <br />could he interpreted with more flexibility and may not be as restrictive. <br />Mrs. Timmons stated that the Building Inspector does not want this <br />flexibility as it causes problems. Timmons felt that it would be <br />to the benefit of the City not to have a flexible ordinance as the <br />Council and Commission are legally responsible for interpretations <br />of ordinances. Timmons stated that it was very important to the <br />City to have clear —cut ordinances. Timmons stated that whether or <br />not the Commission agrees with the ordinance, it should he a <br />clear —cut ordinance. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff recommended that the proposed text amendment on <br />accessory buildings be reconsidered. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Davison. <br />Motion carried 7 — 0. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff recommended that the proposed text amendment on <br />accessory buildings he approved. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. French. <br />Motion carried 7 — 0. <br />Mr. Davison stated that a lot of people in the City knowingly or <br />unknowingly assume that they can put up sheds. <br />Mr. French stated that the height limitation in the ordinance still <br />bothered him. <br />—10— <br />