Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />7. That the Applicants are proposing to construct a 960 square foot (24' x 40') detached <br />accessory structure on the Subject Property. <br />8. That the Applicants are proposing to construct living quarters on the second floor of the <br />detached accessory structure. <br />9. That the second dwelling and the existing accessory structure on the Subject Property <br />would equal a total of 1,536 square feet and does not violate City Code 9.11.02 Accessory <br />Uses. <br />10. That the second dwelling will not adversely impact traffic in the area. <br />11. That the second dwelling will not be unduly dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons <br />residing or working in the vicinity of the use or to the public welfare. <br />12. That the second dwelling will substantially adversely impair the use, enjoyment, or market <br />value of any surrounding property because this will permit a second family unit to live on <br />the Subject Property and the zoning performance standards for the Subject Property are <br />designed for one single family residence per lot. <br />13. That the second dwelling may be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses as the <br />Subject Property is zoned for single residential and the performance standards for this zone <br />are intended to accommodate a single family residence. <br />14. That the second dwelling will not be served adequately by public facilities and services <br />such as highways and streets. <br />15. That the second dwelling may create excessive additional requirements at public cost for <br />public facilities and services, and it may be detrimental to the economic welfare of the <br />community as there may not be sufficient area on the Subject Property to accommodate the <br />necessary sewage disposal systems for two residential dwellings. <br />16. That this application is not similar to recent previous approvals for the same type of use, as <br />the Applicant is proposing new construction as opposed to the use of existing buildings on <br />the Subject Property. <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember <br />Kurak, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: <br />Mayor Gamec <br />Councilmember Zimmerman <br />Councilmember Kurak <br />Councilmember Anderson <br />Councilmember Hendriksen <br />RESOLUTION #01 -09 -362 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />