Agenda - Council - 05/13/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE # q REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE RESTRICTIONS; CASE OF DARYL AND CAROL RICHMOND By: Chris Anderson, Community Development Assistant Background: The City received an application from Daryl and Carol Richmond for a conditional use permit to exceed the accessory building size restrictions established in City Code on the property, located at 17623 Marmoset St NW. The following items are enclosed for your information: a) Site location map b) Picture of property c) Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes dated May 1, 2003 d) Proposed findings of fact e) Proposed conditional use permit f) 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 1.94 acres (84,506.4 square feet) in size and is located outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Under City Code, parcels between 43,560 sq. ft. and 87,119 sq. ft. can have up to 1,664 square feet of accessory building space. 'The proposed building will be 1,440 square feet (30' x 48') in size. Coupled with the existing garage (624 sq. ft.), the applicant would have 2,064 sq. ft. in accessory buildings. This results in an overage of 400 square feet. The applicant would like to exceed the 1,664 square feet restriction in order to construct a detached accessory building that would accommodate the storage of vehicles, a boat, and other personal equipment. The proposed detached accessory building will be located in the side/rear yard to the north/northwest 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. Also, the proposed accessory structure would not be located nearer the front lot line than the principal structure. The building would be situated so as to utilize the existing driveway. .'. The Planning Commission held a public heating and reviewed the request on May 1, 2003. There was no citizen opposition during the public hearing. -221-