Agenda - Council - 05/10/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

building from the public view. The Accessory Building would comply with all other setbacks as well (side,rear, and from the well and septic system too). The Applicant has stated that no part of the Accessory Building would be used for commercial purposes. Furthermore,they have noted that no part would be utilized as an accessory apartment. Existing Buildings There are presently five (5) detached accessory buildings, along with a membrane-type structure, on the Subject Property. This exceeds the allowable number of detached accessory buildings for the parcel size and City Code does not allow for membrane-type structures. The Applicant has stated that one of the smaller accessory buildings actually belongs to the previous property owner(and contains some of their belongings still) and that they were in the process of'tinning'the membrane-type structure (it's used as a wood shed). If it were converted to a'permanent' structure (metal paneled walls and roof),there would actually be a total of six(6) existing, detached accessory buildings on the Subject Property, excluding the proposed Accessory Building. The combined square footage of the existing detached accessory buildings (excluding the membrane-type structure) is approximately 2,170 square feet. If the membrane-type structure were included(if it were converted to a more 'permanent' structure),that would be approximately another 300 square feet(2,470 total). The Applicant has stated that they would be willing to remove one of the smaller, existing accessory buildings if necessary. If all existing buildings were to remain,then the total square footage, including the proposed Accessory Building, on the Subj ect Property would be approximately 9,670 square feet. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the request at their April 28, 2022 regular meeting. There were no verbal comments on the request;however, Staff did receive a written comment that opposed the overall size of the proposed building and noted a concern with drainage as well (comment is attached to the case). The Planning Commission supported the request as is and did not recommend removing any of the existing buildings as a contingency. Alternatives Alternative 1: Approve the Conditional Use Permit with the contingency that the membrane-type structure is removed and/or converted to a more'permanent'type of structure. The proposed use (indoor horse riding arena) seems reasonable based on the zoning and guidance of the Subject Property. The Applicant has stated that it would be compatible in color with the dwelling and,based on existing conditions, it would be somewhat screened from public view(especially considering the speed limit on Saint Francis Boulevard). The total number of detached accessory buildings could be addressed via the Conditional Use Permit. Alternative 2: Approve the Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the membrane-type structure being removed and reducing the total number of detached accessory buildings so that there are no more than four(4) on the Subject Property, including the proposed Accessory Building. This would be more consistent with City Code in terms of the number of buildings on site. Staff will note that there is decent screening on all sides of the Subject Property, so the number of buildings would likely not be as noticeable. Alternative 3: Deny the Conditional Use Permit. While the requested additional square footage is significant, it is necessary for the proposed type of personal use (indoor horse riding arena). Based on the existing screening and speed of vehicles traveling on Saint Francis Boulevard, it does not appear that the Accessory Building would be as noticeable compared to other parcels. The only potential concern would be possible future uses of the building. If no longer used as an indoor horse riding arena, it could be viewed by some as an ideal building for a commercial use. However,that is specifically addressed in the conditions of the Resolution. Funding Source: The Applicant is responsible for all costs related to this request. Recommendation: