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

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE # REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE RESTRICTIONS; · CASE OF CINDI AND MICHAEL HEYING By: Chris Anderson, Community Development Assistant Background: The City received an application from Cindi and Michael Heying for a conditional use permit to exceed the accessorY building size restrictions established in City Code on-the property located at 17211 Willemite St NW. The following items are enclosed for your information: a) Site location map b) Site Plan c) Picture of property d) Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes dated October 3, 2002 e) Proposed findings of fact f) Proposed conditional use permit g) Proposed resolution denying conditional use permit Notification: State statute requires notification of the public hearing to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff sent out notices to all property oWners within 350 feet. Observations: The subject property is approximately 0.95 acres (41,364.77 square feet) in size and is located outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Under City Code, parcels between 14,880 sq. ft. and 43,559 sq. ft. can have up to 1,488 square feet of accessory building space. The proposed building will be 1,120 square feet (28' x 40') in size. Coupled with the existing garage (440 sq. ft.), the applicants will have 1,560 sq. ft. in accessory buildings. This results in an overage of 72 square feet. The applicants would like to exceed the 1,488 square feet restriction in order to construct a detached accessory building that would accommodate the storage of a classic car and other personal equipment/vehicles. The proposed detached accessory building will be located in the side yard to the north of the principal dwelling and just south of the transmission line easement. The proposed accessory building location exceeds the ten (10) foot side yard and five (5) foot rear yard setbacks established in the Rural Developing Bulk Standards. The applicants stated that a second driveway would be installed. The applicants also applied for a variance to the frOnt yard setback of forty (40) feet (which results in the accessory structure being located thirty-three [33] from the front property line). The case was presented to the Board of Adjustments on October 3, 2002, and was approved. 5 -197-