Agenda - Council - 09/27/2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

65,340 — 87,119 sf (1.5 to 1.99 acres) 2,400 87,120— 108,899 sf (2 to 2.49 acres) Table 1. City Code Section 117-349 (d) (14) b. 22 The Applicant has stated that the need for the oversized accessory building is to provide storage for the following items: a 33 foot motor home, lawn care equipment, snowmobiles, a snow blower, 4-wheelers, bicycles and other sporting equipment, and future vehicle storage. Aside from the motor home, all storage needs are currently being met by the existing storage space. The Applicant is willing to connect the existing second driveway, which provides access off of Vicuna Street, to the proposed building, and bring the driveway into compliance with Code requirements. Notification: Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within 350 feet of the boundaries of the Subject Property by standard U.S. mail. The notice for Public Hearing was also published in the Anoka UnionHerald, the City's official newspaper. Observations/Alternatives: Note: the Applicant originally proposed to construct a fifty (50) foot by eighty (80) foot, or 4,000 square foot, accessory building. Staff had a number of concerns with the original CUP request and worked with the Applicant to arrive at a compromise that would meet the needs of the applicant while balancing the concerns of the City. The primary concern being that the scale was incompatible with the existing development pattern and residential character of the area. There is also the perennial concern about the potential to introduce commercial activity into a residential area. While staff supports allowing a reasonable overage in building size, the original request did not demonstrate a clear justification of need. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing at their September 1 meeting. There were no written or verbal comments received at the hearing. In addition to the CUP, the Applicant had requested a variance to the maximum allowable height for accessory structures to allow for a height of eighteen (18) feet to accommodate motor home storage. The Planning Commission tabled the variance request and advised the Applicant to work with staff to arrive upon an alternative building design that both complies with the height requirement of sixteen (16) feet and allows for motor home storage. Staff met with the Applicant to discuss possible alternatives; the outcome of the meeting being the Applicant intends on exploring potential design alternatives with builders upon receipt of a CUP (did not want to expend monies on potential design alternatives until it was known if the square footage would be permitted). Alternative #1: Approve Resolutions #16-09-153 and #16-09-154 to grant a Conditional Use Permit allowing for construction of an oversized (2,400 square foot) accessory building. Staff believes that the Applicant's modified request is reasonable and therefore is supportive of this alternative. Alternative #2: Do not approve the Conditional Use Permit. The modified request seems compatible with the existing residential development pattern and character of the area. Staff believes that the modified proposal addresses both the needs of the Applicant and the initial concerns of the City, and results in a reasonable overage amount. Therefore, Staff does not support this option. Alternative #3: Approve a modified version of Resolutions #16-09-153 and #16-09-154. This action would be based on discussion. Staff believes that current proposal satisfies the needs of the Applicant and addresses the initial concerns of the City. However, if there are additional conditions the City Council finds appropriate, Staff is not opposed to this option. Funding Source: All costs associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Applicant.