My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/22/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2002
>
Agenda - Council - 10/22/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 11:12:41 AM
Creation date
9/3/2003 9:12:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/22/2002
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
465
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The proposed detached accessory building will be located in the rear yard to the northwest of the <br />principal dwelling. The proposed accessory building location exceeds the ten (10) foot side yard <br />and five (5) foot rear yard setbacks established in the Rural Developing Bulk Standards. There is <br />an existing driveway leading to the proposed site. The applicant stated that an approach would <br />be installed. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this application on October 3, 2002. At said <br />meeting, the applicant presented a letter of support signed by ten neighborhood residents. <br />However, also on October 3, 2002, the Northfork Architectural Review Committee sent a letter <br />to City Staff stating that they were not inclined to approve the current plans. The applicant than <br />stated that the Review Committee agreed to review the plans a second time but had not reached a <br />decision. At this point, the application was tabled, until October 10, 2002 when the Northfork <br />Architectural Review Committee had reached a definitive decision. <br /> <br />On October 10, 2002, the Planning Commission reconvened their regular meeting. On October <br />10, 2002, the Northfork Architectural Review Board faxed a letter to Staff stating that they were <br />not willing to approve Mr. Shappell's request to construct an accessory structure with the <br />existing dimensions (34' x 50'), but, they would be willing to approve a 34' x 30' structure <br />(which would meet City Code). <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br /> The PI ~ming Commission recommended the City Council deny David and Sandra Shappell's <br /> .~for a conditional use permit. <br /> 'Council Action: <br /> <br /> ~' MotiOn to adopt Re,s, olution #02-10-~ adopting Findings of Fact # . relating to David <br /> ,'0' and Sandra Shappell s request for a conditional use permit to exceed the accessory building size <br />N,~ restriCtions on the property at 9325 164a Lane NW. <br /> <br />-and- <br /> <br />MotiOn to deny the conditional use permit requestto exceed accessory building size, based on the <br />Findings of Fact # <br /> <br />~or- <br /> <br />MotiOn to approve David and Sandra Shappell's request to exceed accessory <br />restrictions based on the Findings of Fact # __, and adopt Resolution #02-10- <br />terms of same. <br /> <br />building size <br />~ declaring <br /> <br />Review Checklist: <br />Community Development Director <br />Principal Planner <br />Associate Planner <br />City Attorney <br /> <br /> CC: 10/22/02 <br />-172- <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.