Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/25/2022

Home

Commissioner Walker noted that the staff report mentioned that the applicant plans to store his 36-foot camper inside the building, which would leave four additional feet in length. He asked if there was a reason the applicant chose 40 foot instead of 45 feet for length of the building. Mr. Doble replied that it was the standard building size and would allow for him to also store his boat and other items inside. Commissioner Walker asked if the applicant would support him requesting an additional five feet in length. Mr. Doble replied that he would not have a problem with that. Commissioner Anderson asked what is stored in the 10 by 10 shed. Mr. Doble replied that a snowmobile and lawnmower are stored in that shed. Commissioner Anderson asked if the 10 by 10 shed were required for removal, would the applicant be able to fit everything in the new building. Mr. Doble was unsure noting that he has not staked out parking for the items he planned to park in the new building. He also provided details of what is stored in the 12 by 14 building. He commented that the existing accessory buildings are full of equipment and storage. He noted that he prefers inside storage rather than storing items outdoors. Commissioner Anderson asked how the square footage would fall within code if the proposed building were allowed to increase in size, suggesting a 30 by 50 building. Senior Planner Anderson provided those calculations, noting about 550 square feet over what would be allowed. He noted that would include the 10 by 10 shed. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Commission were to approve a building of 30 by 40 feet, but the applicant discovered he actually needed a building 30 by 50, would the applicant then need to go through the entire process again. Senior Planner Anderson confirmed that the entire process would begin again including notice for the public hearing. Commissioner Hunt acknowledged that if the property were slightly larger, additional square footage would be allowed, and asked if the number of accessory structures allowed would also increase. Senior Planner Anderson replied that the number of allowed accessory structures would not increase. He stated that the applicant did investigate the option of attaching a building, but the cost was prohibitive because of the frost footings that would be required. He stated that staff worked with the applicant in attempt to avoid how this CUP process could have been avoided. Planning Commission/ August 25, 2022 Page 3 of 27