Agenda - Council - 10/22/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Service Area (MUSA). Under City Code, parcels between 2-2.59 acres can have up square feet of accessory building space. The proposed building will be 1,700 square fe~ 50') in size. Coupled with the existing garage (1,030 sq. ft.), the applicant will have:2'~3~ sq. ft.:~ in accessory buildings. Th/s results in an overage of 666 square feet. The applic~nt;~.ould like to exceed the 2,064 square feet restriction in order to construct a detached that would accommodate the storage of a 5th wheel travel trailer as well as a tractor and other ~al equipment/vehicles. The applicant has stated that the exterior wall m~Is will cons fin/shed coat stucco that will match the house exterior. The accessory~'buildi J comply the height restrictions. ~&~:~, ~,~:4~4~ . Citizen Input ~ Community Development Director Frolik reported tha~"~l~e~:.,,received a':t~,from the Northfork Homeowner's Association. She explained that M.ri:'~i:Sfi~is~e'.12 ori~natl~i:i~4{ ,a verbal message from the Association that indicated their inclin'atior~-Was ¢~':~Ppr e l~iding. But after meeting with Mr. Shappell, their letter indicated they were g$i~t~j~-recommend denial. She advised that Mr. Shappell stated that later th/s afternoon the Associiifi~¢n agreed to take a second look at his proposal The Association is requesting, if approvai'~; n§;~d, that it be contingent upon what Mr. Shappell w°rt~s out..w~th the Northfork Homeowne~.,s:-Assocmtm . David Shappell, applicant, stat~:i!"'th~:,he ha~-~':;' :wtfich has be'~h};':'¢}igned by all of the neighbors with the exception 6f':bne wfib*i~as not 100..°/6-~2: ~:gYbr'~f.i~he building but indicated he would not attend the meeting to voice hi~:6pinion,/H*'~tated 'h6:'pI~hs to construct the building whether or not the variance is granted. [fm'e'.vari~n~' is not ~bd, the building will be 20 feet shorter. Mr. Shappell e>tplained that he needS~:the~building to be 50 feet long to get his 5th wheel inside. If the variance' i:~ not.approved, he MiiCark the 5th-wheel in his driveway. He explained : '~ ~Z~er's Association'sU- o~} uttin vehicles away so he is not-sure of that the Nort, h~or, k Homeow-4'~, .... PP ..... :.,¢ g their objection!~ He stated tti~!'building is behind:7~ii/ouse, in 'the trees, and meets all criteria of the ciwSi.~Xeept for the leng~'~';~ He offered to~,~;~.,..,~._~.,, the next meeting if the Commission would like ~tdi~'i0nat'time to getthe~ecommendatiJ6fi;~6f the Association. Commissioner KodiSc-aI~ asked what the ti'~ight of this building would be. .:::~--'~:~'~j~[1, stated it i~2~eet~mh and meets the criteria of the City. :. ".?:.i·-&- :,'~': .... .. '~ iT:5'}7 :'/' :~"f':~' Communi '-~"~velopm'en~i:;~ctor Frolik explained that City Code allows 22 feet from mean !5~. ground to maai2~, gable S~' the proposed building meets the restrictions. The issue under ~i:i5-~(,7: ~. consideration i§.'t~e building size, not the length. :'-:~j:i~.~i Commissioner:johnson asked if this property is subject to the architectural control with the ,(~_Northfork,,~6'meowner's Association covenants. He noted if that is the case, regardless what the -~i~-:does.3-,Northfork would have jurisdiction. Planning Commission/October 3, 2002 Page 4 of 12 -182- I I I I I I