The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-10-07 PACKET 04.P.REQUEST OF C17Y COUNCIL A�l'IOfV COl1PJCIL. AGENDA MEETING ITE # DATE 10l7l98 FREPARED BY: Community Development Kim Lindquist �RIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AtJTNOR ....«�.�.tr�Q�4.4.«...�..«A�.«.«ea.a..��4W.«..�.. � , , ,• - � Approve a conditional use permit to constnact an oversized detached accessory s4ructure a4 7630 —113th Street South. : � - � . : � • • • ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION ��' 1� • : •: ■ ' ' , . �� ■' = •` ■ s � M . ♦ , .. f � � . ■ - � � � � • •' � '►�,w �� .� REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ � � ❑ ❑ N/A ACTUALAMOUNT DEN{ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � � �� '� .�.♦ !' � .��: � ��.�,;;.�:. . ~ ..� ,�.� i: � � � � �� '.)• � .- y . APPROVED � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2) Excerpt from unapproved minutes of September 28 Pianning Commission meeting �k �� 1�- •` '�, � a �y� City P,dministrator Date ��Am��$��$��m�«:aA��R.��a�«A�««��.� �o��ci� �caio� �,��c��: ❑ a�P�o�� ❑ ��r�� ❑ o�r��r� ..� . . at; . � . �.,-:y _ �: ie� RESOLUTION NO. 98-XXX A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVERStZED DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 7630 —113TH STREET SOUTH WHEREAS, Stanley Waidelich, Jr., is proposing to construct a 40-foot by 87.5 foot (3,500 square foot) oversized detached accessory structure that would be 23 feet in height on his property, which is legally described as: The South half of the East half of the West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 21 West; City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota. Commonly known as 7630 —113th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington Gounty Bulletin; and WFIEREl�S, thQ Planning �ammi��ipn h�[d a public hea�ing on Septemher 28, 19A8; ar.c� WHEREAS, the public hearing was opened for public testimony and neither written nor verbal objection was received; and WHEREAS, the applicant was present and agreed with the recommended canditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the application, subject to certain conditions listed below. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota hereby approves the conditional use permit to permit Resolution No. 98-XXX October 7, 1998 Page 2 construction of an oversized (3,500 square foot) detached accessory structure on property legaily described above, subject to the follawing conditions: 1. The conditional use permit shail expire and become void if the approved structure is not built within one year of the date of approval. 2. A revised buiiding permit applicztion shall be submitted and approved by the City. 3. The samples of the exterior colors and photographs or drawings of the architecturai design of the accessory structure shall be submitted with the building permit appiication and also be approved by the City. 4. The trees and other vegetation on the site that screen the proposed structure from adjacent public roadways or adjacent properties shall be generally maintained in good health or be replaced with similar types and quantity of species. 5. Vehicular access to the proposed accessory structure shail be from and limited to the existing driveway lacation. 6. The use of the accessory structure for the operation of any home occupations not in conformance with section 28-82 through section 28-90 of the City code is prohibited. If future zoning or other site development renders the accessory structure non- conforming, the structure shall be brought into compiiance with the applicable ordinance criteria or removed. Passed this 7th day of October, 1998. Jahn D. Denzer, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Cierk . � � � � . • . . PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 8/25/97 TENTATNE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 9f17/97 .,� . � APPLICANT: Stanley Waidelich Jr. REQUEST: A variance from section 28-21(a) and 28-21(b) relating to size and type of accessory structures permitted in the R-3 single family residential district. r� , �OCATION: ZONING: CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: SIZE: 7630 113 Street S. R-3, Single Family Residential NORTH: Single Family Residential EAST: Single Family Residential SOUTH: Single Family Residential WEST: Single Family Residential 5 acres DEIVSITY: N/A • !� t Deny the application. 1 .� ''• "' , ; I 1 F:\GROUPSNLANNINGN 99TPCRP'N741-CVR.doc i � � 1]G86 ,� .� ,� ,�� ,�,,, � � � ! � � � � � � € FTd � � nsa (��.a� 113�" S1REE R � e 2 � W � Z w > < J G W � H p� ..�� W'� 01M Q \ : / aeoo o a000 �� ...a......... PLANNING STAFF REPORT CASES V97-41 AUGUST 25,1997 PROPOSAL Stanley Waidelich Jr., 7630 113` Street South, has filed for a variance from section 28- 21(a) and 28-21(b) relating to size and type of accessory structure permitted in the R-3 single family residential district. The applicant wishes to construct a 49 X 99 foot (4,851 square foot) rurai storage pole building on his property. This structure would be 3,331 square feet larger than the permitted accessory structure size, and would equate to over three times the maximum size allowed in the R3 zoning district. The structure is proposed to have 14 foot side walis and be a total of 22 feet in height. Exhibit A details the location of the proposed str�cture on the applicants property, and Exhibit B details an elevation sketch plan of the buiiding. BACKGROUND Under the current ordinance, all properties within the R3 zoning district that can meet setback and easement requirements, are entitled to an accessory structure up to 1,520 square feet. The height limitation is 14 feet. Pole buildings are not permitted in the single family residentiai district. I�A_\�I�II�[c�i�ilPl. � : _ • ► Property Characteristics There is currently a brick single family residence with an attached garage on the property which is five acres or 330 x 660 feet. The rolling sandy site is located in an area of large acreage parceis and is served by private weil and septic. Private onsite systems are allowed en the R3 zoning district with a minimum acreage of an acre and a half. The septic system is located near the house and would not be affected by the proposed location of the accessory structure. The property is heavily screened from the roadway, as the rear and side property lines are fianked with coniferous trees approximately 30 feet in height. The front of the property contains a large stand of sumac. Miscellaneous trees dot the interior of the site. The property does not abut the river, but it does lies within and is regulated by the criteria for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area overlay district (Critical Area). Additional ordinance criteria is established for this district. The property is identified as being outside of the 100 year flood zone (zone C) on the Federal insurance Administration map. Structure Description The proposed pole buiidi�g will have a tan metal siding with an offsetting wainscoting on the lower portion. The applicant has indicated that the structure will be constructed to provide interior storage space for vehicies and equipment. The use of the accessory structure for the operation of any home occupations not in conformance with section 28-82 through section 28-90 of the City code is prohibited. Ali proposed setbacks are in Planning Staff Report Case V97-41 August 25, 1997 Page 2 compliance with ordinance criteria. The proposed buiiding would be located in the rear yard of the property behind the principal structure. The buiiding would be located 592 feet from the front property line, 35 feet from the eastern side property line, 196 feet from the western side property line and 20 feet from the rear property line. VARIANCE In order to grant a variance, the applicant must demonstrate a hardship and meet a list of other established findings. The City may impose conditions and safeguards in granting any variance. A list of the established ordinance finding criteria is included at the end of this report. Research was completed in relation to past variances that were granted for oversized accessory structures. A large number of size variances were granted in tne seventies and eighties when the ordinance criteria for accessory structure square footage maximums was more restrictive. None of the variance requests were as large as this application. Since the adoption of new ordinance in 1989, requests and approvals have decreased significantly. Due to the lack of accessory structure size variances approved since the ordinance change, it has been determined that precedence has not been established. Case V97-17 which was the most recent variance case for a accessory structure size deviation at 8404 115` Street was denied based on the inability to substantiate hardship. A prior size variance was granted in 1995 at 7992 110 Street for a 23 foot tall hand framed 1,944 square foot rural storage building (case V95-10). The findings for this case are found below. Staffs interpretation as to the relevancy in this application are listed below in italics. 1. The rural atmosphere and large lot sizes around the applicanYs property appear to be in conflict with the current zoning classification of the area, a�d will be addressed in the rnaster rezoning of the Gity. The c.onflicts behveen the current zonin5 3r,d actua! lend use arise from the fact that many of the minimum and ma�imum development standards, such as setbacks, lot sizes and building scale, are nat suitable to this location. Reguiations from another zoning classification such as rurai residential wouid seem to be more appropriate. The accessory structure proposed in this application is similar in mass and dimensians to the structures that would be allowed if the property is rezoned. • Since fhe 1995 application, the Planning Commission has addressed this zoning issue and has determined not to recommend a change in zoning designation ar regulations of the area (July 1997). The applicants proposal is also inconsisfent wifh the size of accessory structure a!/owed under a rural residential zoning. If it were in a rural residentiai zoning classification, the proposed structure wou(d sfi/! be aver two fimes the maximum allowable square foofage for an accessory structure. Planning Staff Report Case V97-41 August 25, 1997 Page 3 2. An accessory structure with more square footage and tailer height would not merely serve as a convenience to the appiicant. The Conditional Use Permit requirement that the permitted ciass one commercial vehicle be stored indoors creafes a demonstrated hardship to justify the proposed building height of twenty three feet, because the vehicle is to big for the standard permitted accessory structure in the R3 zoning district. • There is no CUP or other unique circumstance associafed with the applicants property that staff couid justify granting of a variance. 3. A larger garage door height is justifiabie for ingress egress purposes of a large (10'6") Class one commercial vehicle into the required storage area. • 7he doors in this applicafion would meet ordinance criteria and are not relevent to this parficular finding. 4. The property size and dense screening limit the effects this building would have on neighboring properties or the general pubiic. • The applicants property is similarfy screened, buf the unique ci�cumstances for the granting of a variance fhat would trigger additional screening do not apply in the current case. The applicant contends that he should be able to build an accessory structure to the standards proposed because his neighbors have similarly large accessory structures. The large 50 X 150 foot structure to the east was formerly an agriculturaily used building. The large construction size was allowed under state statutes and city zoning text that allow for unrestricted accessory structures for properti�� that m�et the Agricultur�l iJrban or Rurai definifion. At the time of consfrucfion, the property was formally 10 acres in size and met the use definition. The property to the south at 7653 113` has a 30 X 50 foot pole shed which was granted by conditional use permit in 1987 for size, and a variance for a front yard location. The building size is currently below the ordinance criteria maximum. There is no planning or building permit records available to determine the history of the oider 40 x 75 quonset hut located across the street at 7641 113`� Street. The rationale of granting a variance based strictly on surrounding land uses that were constructed under different circumstances and regulations couid set a precedent for future variance requests. Staff recognizes that the R3 low density residential zoning classification is "unique" for a rurally located property. However, granting of a variance for an overly large accessory structure would be inconsistent with the zoning and contrary to the development pattern of the neighborhood. Planning Staff RepoR Case V97-41 August25, �997 Page 4 Zoning allows for predictable development patterns in any portion of the community that lies within the same zoning district. Deviations from this predictability is eroded by the granting of variances that are unsubstantiated by unique circurnstances. This appiication does not have uniquely different circumstances as compared to other similar properties within the same zoning district. The storage of accumulated vehicles and equipment could be an argument for variance for all properties within the community. Based on the lot size and the current secluded location of the property, the approvai of a size variance wouid probably not impair the pubiic health, safety or welfare in any way, yet it would seem to merely serve as a conve�ience to the applicant. Deniai of the variance wouid stiil leave the applicant reasonable use of the prope�ty, as an accessory structure that is up to 1,520 square is permitted. Review of the Critical Area variance criteria in relation to the application did not reveal any adverse circumstances. The applicants response to the application questions is attached as Exhibit C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the established ordinance criteria Staff recommends denial of the variance request from section 28-21(a) and 28-21(b) which regulates size and type of accessory structures. Deniai of the variance to construct a 49X 99 foot rural storage pole buiiding on the property at 7630 113` Street is based upon the following: 1. The ordinance permits reasonabie use of the property which permits construction of a 1,520 square foot accessory structure. 2. The appiicant has noi demonstrated hardship innate to the properfy which wouid warrant granting of the variance. 3. The property does not meet the definition of an Agricultural Rural or Agricultural Urban property which are regulated differently under state statutes and locai zoning ordinances. 4. The applicant has not demonstrated unique conditions that apply to the property that do nat generally apply to other property within the same zoning district. Prepared by: John M. Burbank, Associate Planner Planning Staff Report Case V97-41 August 25, 1997 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B- Accessory structure elevation detail Exhibit C- Applicants finding response ORDINANCE CRITERIA In order to grant a variance, all of the following findings must be met: 1. There are unique conditions that apply to the structure or land in question that do not apply generally to other structures or land in the same zoning district. 2. The granting of a variance must not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but must be necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 3. Granting the variance must neither impair the public health, safety, comfort, or morais in any respect nor be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Pian. In addition to the normal variance criteria, the City must address the following when reviewing variances within the Mississippi River Critical Area Overlay District (Critical Area}. 1. Preserving the scenic and recreational resources of the river corridor, especially s� � regard to the view �rcri anci use of the rive�. 2. The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions. 3. The prevention and control of water pollution, including sedimentation. 4. The location of the site with respect to floodways, floodplains, slopes and blufflines. 5. The erosion potentiai of the site based on degree and direction of slope, soil type and vegetative cover. 6. Potential impact on game and fish habitat. 7. Location of the site with respect to existing or future access roads. Planning Staff Report Case V97-41 August 25, 1997 Page 6 8. The amount of wastes to be generated and the adequacy of the proposed disposal systems. 9. The anticipated demand for police, fire, medical and school services and facilities. 10. The compatibility of the proposed development with uses on adjacent land. The City may impose conditions and safeguards in granting any variance. GU 99TPCRPT9741-rpt.DOC � � ��/%n�-�ry � ��C' T �F' /F R' .F �. � � tn 3e" NH �� o �� oo- � , a� � � �- .��►-�.�-°- ;. � � a � � c �� -, < r 9 � use 0 i c3c.3 � �U� a �.. �,� o 3�� 30 � � Sfre�- =s� � � � � j' ; ; ,' I /� � � I �� ja ' `;� � � h xd �� i../, „. � /s�� °.�;� �nus�- 'sol Xso` 1lble s6ed EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MtNUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CASE CUP98-37: Stanley Waidelich, Jr. has applied for a conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage at 7630 —113th Street South. Burbank summarized the staff report and expiained that the appiicant had applied for a variance in 1997 to construet an omersized detached accessory �tructure, which was tabled pending review of the ordinance criteria. Staff has received a written withdrawal of the V97-41 appiication, so no formal action is needed. The application before the Commission tonight is based on the guidelines of the new ordinance. Burbank stated that staff is recommending approvai subject to the conditions listed in the report. Sawyer asked about the intended use of proposed structure. Stan Waidelich, Jr., 7630 —1'I3th Street, answered that it would be used for storage of a boat, a motor home, AN's, and other items. He stated that he was in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. Waidelich requested that his appiication be piaced on the October 7 City Council agenda rather than on October 21. �indquist stated that it could be on the agenda for October 7. Auge opened the public hearing. No one spoke. The publec hearing was closed. Rice moved to approve the applicafion subject to fhe seven conditions tisted in the staff reporG Boyden seconded. 1. The conditiona! use permit shall expire and become void if the approved structure is not builf within one year of the date of approval. 2. A revised building permit applicatlon shal/ be submltted and approved by the City. 3. The samp/es of fhe e�cferior colors and phofographs or drawings of fhe archifecfural design of the accessory strucfure shall be submitted with the building permif application and a/so be approved by the Clty. 4. The irees and ofher vegetation on fhe slte fhaf screen fhe proposed sfructure from adjacenf pvblie roadways or adjacent properties shall be generally maintained er. �ood heaitl� or be rep/aced with similar types and quanfity of species. 5. Vehicular access to the proposed accessory structure shal/ 6e from and limited ta the exisfing driveway Iocafion. 6. The use of the accessory structure for the aperafion of any home occupafions not in conformance with section 28-82 through section 28-90 of the City code is prohibited. 7. If future zoning or other site development �enders the accessory structure non- conforming, fhe structure shal! be broughf into comptiance with fhe applicable ordinance criferia or removed. Mofion passed unanimously. �' F ' MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John M. Burbank, Associate Planner DATE: October 6, 1998 RE: Planning Case CUP98-37 Introduction The Community Development submittal to the City Council in last week's packet is in error. The Planning Staff Report for Case V97-41 was inadvertently inciuded in the Council packet in place of the actual current report for Case CUP98-37. Discussion The old report that was included was from a prior submittai from the same appiicant. The 1997 case was tabled by the Planning Commission and was recently withdrawn by Mr. Waidelich. The 1998 Council action request is to approve a conditional use permit for an oversized detached accessory structure. This application request is the first to be handied under the newly revised detached accessory structure ordinance. Rural properties are allowed by ordinance to exceed the established criteria by 40 percent v✓ith a conditional use permit, if certain criteria sre met. The applieanYs proposal meets the established criteria. The physical differences between the current application and the old one are that the new one has a smaller proposed structure and increased setbacks. Recommendation Staff recommends review of the correct report for Case CUP98-37 and City Council approval of a conditional use permit ailowing for the construction of an oversized detached accessory stru�ture at 7630 — 113th Street. , . ... . . .-.. ,. . �. .• 1 ITEM: 6.1 PUBLIC MEETING DATE: 9/28198 TENTATIVE COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: 10t21198 APPLICATION APPLICANT: REQUEST: Stanley Waidelich, Jr. A conditional use permit to construct an oversized garage at 7630 — 113th Street South. _ � • • LOCATION: ZONING: CONTIGUOUS LAND USE: SIZE: 7630 —113th Street South R-3, singie family residential NORTH: Single Family Residential EAST: Single Family Residentiai SOUTH: Single Famity Residential WEST: Single Family Residential 5 acres DENSITY: N!A � � ll �� ►, Approve the conditional use permit (Case CUP98-37) subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report and deny the variance application (Case V97-41). I � ' 1 ' � 1 •' F:\GROUPS\PLANNING\1998�PCREPORT�9637 cover.doc f � ,�� { '. _ ___ _ _ _—j w,.< s , _ ___ ___; ,�,. � ,Po� #r Z F s ' j e p _ ._ .___.__ .._'"... ._.____ _J _. _. . _ " ` . '�'_"_ _� . . . . . —�.____.._'_ ___w�.,n,+,_ R y �,.. ^ R � c n� . . .es SITE k i ' ,� a., „� �,o ,� ,� � 1 - �. ' R : . ��. . . , '. � ..__ ...._. _.. .3 � �' . .__ � � _ _ -_ ^ N . . _ ... j .._:_. �F : - . ' £ ,. c r t , , � , � _ � e . . � . . � E ,r` rwa _ �, � � s s „'`a § �39�E�."e'�s :. , � ''_ h ` _ :. ' g 8 = � .. X � p � .�. �11w' - I ' I . i� — ' r� ;,- � �.L ` .. -Er - .. �. '_-� y ' "� ` �'. � ��a,�H�'?-r,o-. �_" }R g °..' '< Y.� aTl �' '- r� �. .. i . ... t � 5- � �;�R2�4C�"FX*Knn�. _..F_N2 .�_ � TlY � .�� 9'R9FUT'n - - �_ n� '` ��.'+ex xtr. ,cr3+v>'v1T'«'�vs�`n�y�A'�''�° ° 8�8i � i ' . � � � 4 4 +F' S `�3 3> 3 Q R. ,�' proa�dC6Ni F. y . F R 'k = ,� -c `�� 3� ^ � y . b �.��ca} . "u'�'t°a� R . R _ �_�� ` �`�"4s's§ '+`>�`. "� . '"*'�T+ ti,� I �' �� i ^ sm ^-'--.� '°_�`> i*tYS..iS. <'b'�r4`�x�' .. _ ,x _z��.�:9�?r......e-�_.. . J .c.Y-.,. \^.� �.:1:1.� � NORT�I . � . � • , PLANNING STAFF REPORT CASES CUP98-37 SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 PROPOSAL Stanley Waide{ich Jc, 7630 -113"' Street South, has filed far a Conditiona{ Use permit to exceed the permitted size and height for detached accessory structures in the R-3 single family residential zoning district. The applicant wishes to construct a 40-foot by 87.5-foot {3,500 square foot} detached accessory structure on his rural property. The structure is proposed to have 14-foot side walis and be a total of 23 feet in height. Exhibit A details the location of the proposed structure on the appiicants property, and Exhibit B details an eievation sketch pian of the building. BACKGROUND In 1997 Mr. Waidelich made appiication for a variance from the maximum ailowable size, height, and type of an accessory structure in the R3 zoning district in order to construct a 23- foot tail, 4,851 square foot pole structure. A public hearing was held and the Pianning Commission tabied the application (V97-41) pending review of the accessory structure ordinance criteria. The applicant was agreeable to this action and monitored the text amendment process. In August of 1998 the ordinance language regulating accessory structures was amended. Under the new ordinance, alI properties over three acres within the R3 zoning district that are outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and can meet setback and easement requirements are entitled to an accessory structure up to 2,500 square feet. The height limitation was also raised to twenty (20) feet. Pole buildings that have architectural features and colors that match the principal structure are permitted in the single- family residential districts. The new ordinance also ailows this criteria to be exceeded by 40 percent with a conditional use permit. After the Council adopted the new ordinance criteria, Mr. Waidelicf� submitted a conditional use permit application that included modifications to the requested structure size designed to meet the new standards. The applicant had authorized an indefinite extension for the previous variance application. As part of the conditional use permit approval, the Commission should formally deny the variance. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Property Characteristics There is currently a brick single-family residence with an attached garage on the property, which is five acres or 330 feet by 660 feet. The roliing sandy site is located in an area of large acreage parcels and is served by private well and septic. Private on-site systems are ailowed in the R3 zoning district with a minimum acreage of an acre and a half. The septic system is located near the house and would not be affected by the proposed location of the accessory structure. The property is heavily screened from the roadway, as the rear and side property Planning Staff Report Case CUP9&37 September 28"' , 1998 Page 2 lines are flanked with coniferous trees approximately 30 feet in height. The front of the property contains a large stand of sumac. Miscellaneous trees dot the interior of the site. The property does not abut the river, but it does lie within and is regulated by the criteria for the Mississippi River Corridor Criticai Area overiay district (Critical Area). Additional ordinance criteria are established for this district. The property is identified as being outside of the 100- year flood zone (zone C) on the Federal Insurance Administration map. Structure Description The proposed pole building wili have tan metal siding with an offsetting wainscoting on the lower portion. The appiicant has indicated that the structure will be constructed to provide interior storage space for vehicles and equipment. The use of the accessory structure for the operation of any home occupations not in conformance with section 28-82 through section 28- 90 of the City code is prohibited. All proposed setbacks are in compiiance with ordinance criteria. The proposed building would be located in the rear yard of the property behind the principal structure. The building would be located 560 feet from the front property line, 56 feet from the eastern side property line, 186.5 feet from the western side property line, and 60 feet from the rear property line. CONDITIONAL USE in addition to the standard criteria for issuing a conditional use permit as regulated in section 28-14 and the criteria for properties within the Critical Area section 28-81(c), there are four additional new criteria relating to detached accessory structures. The new ordinance criteria states that "Accessory structures greater than that permitted in Section 28-21(b)(d) may be approved by conditional use permit if in compliance with Section 28-14 and the foliowing standards are met: a. There is adsquate setback, s��eer:ing, or topograph� changes that buff�r th� praposed structure from adjacent public roadways or adjacent properties. The cumulative of the setbacks, screening, and topography changes on the site that more than adequately buffer the proposed structure from adjacent public roadways or adjacent properties. This lot is a classic example of why reasonab/e deviafions from the ordinance should be granted. The visual impacts on adjacent properfies are kept to a minimum due to the setbacks and heavy vegetation. The /arge size of the /ot also helps to minimize the visua/ scale difference between the additiona! size request and the size permitted by ordinance. b. The proposed buiiding height or building square footage does not exceed the ordinance criteria as specified in Section 28-21(b) or 28-21(d) by more than 20 percent within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA} and 40 percent outside the MUSA. Planning Staff Report Case CUP9837 September 28"' , 1998 Page 3 The proposed building height is on/y three feet above the twenty-foot maximum standard, which equates to fifteen percent. The proposed foatprint of the detached accessory structure is ),000 feet above the maximum allowabfe square footage, which equates to 40 percenf. Both of the size increases fail within the new ordinance standards. c. Setback distances are increased five feet for each one-foot of height or 100 square feet of size increase or fraction thereof. The rear and side yard set6acks were adjusted from the initial proposal to accommodate for the height and size increase requests. The side yard sefbacks were increased from 6 feet to 56 feet and the rear yard from 90 feet to 60 feet. d. If future site development renders the structure non-conforming, the building must be brought into compliance or removed as a condition of the development approval. If the application is approved, a condition will be attached that if future site development renders fhe sfructure non-conforming, the building must be brought into compliance or removed as a condifion of the deve%pment approval. This section was created to allow the City some flexibility in granting reasonable requests for buildings that exceed the maximum standards. This ability to be versatile is especially applicable for larger rural properties. In the past, a variance was the only avenue available to exceed ordinance criteria and the findings for granting a variance were sometimes hard to establish or were non-existent. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the appllcants' ciemonstrated ability to meet the established ordinance criferia for granting a conditionai use permit, Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a detached accessory structure that is twenty three (23) feet in height and thirty five hundred (3,500) square feet in size. Said conditional use shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditionai use permit shall expire and become void if the approved structure is not built within one year of the date of approvai. 2. A revised buiiding permit appiication shall be submitted and approved by the City. 3. The samples of the exterior colors and photographs or drawings of the architecturai design of the accessory structure shaii be submitted with the building permit application and also be approved by the City. Pianning Staff Report Case CUP98-37 September 28"' , 1998 Page d 4. The trees and other vegetation on the site that screen the proposed structure from adjacent public roadways or adjacent properties shall be generaliy maintained in good health or be replaced with similar types and quantity of species. 5. Vehicuiar access to the proposed accessory structure shall be from and limited to the existing driveway tocation. 6. The use of the accessory structure for the operation of any home occupations not in conformance with section 28-82 through section 28-90 of the City code is prohibited. 7. if future zoning or other site development renders the accessory structure non- conforming, the structure shall be brought into compliance with the applicable ordinance criteria or removed. Staff recommends denying the variance request (Case V97-41) from Section 28-21(e) and 28- 21(b) relating to size and type of accessory structures permitted in the R3 zoning district. Prepared by: John M.Burbank Associate Pianner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B- Accessory structure elevation detail ORDINANCE CRITERIA Conditional Use Permit Ciiteria Sec6on 28-14, Conditional Use Permit (e) Criteria for issuance. In granting a conditional use permit, the city council shall find that: (1) The use will be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and with the purpose, intent and applicab/e standards of this chapfer. (2) The use shall be located, designed, maintained and operated to be compatible with the existing or intended characfer of that zoning district in which it is located. Plannin� Staff Report Case CUP98-37 September 28"' , 1998 Page 5 (3) The use shall not depreciate values of surrounding property. (4) The use shall not be hazardous, detrimenta! or disturbing to present and potential surrounding land uses due to noises, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water pollution, vibration, genera/ unsightliness or ofher nuisances. (5) The use sha// generate only minimal vehicular tra�c on /oca/ streets as defrned by the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. The use sha// not create tra�c congestion, unsafe access or parking needs fhat will cause inconveniences to the adjoining prdperties. (6) The use sha// be served adequately by essentiai public services, such as streets, police, fire p�otection and utilities. (7) The use sha// not create excessive additional requirements at public cosf for public facilities and services and sha!l not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the city. (8) The use shal/ preserve and incorporate the site's important naturai and scenic feafures into the development design. (9) The use sha// cause minimal adverse environmental effects. (10) The use sha// nof adversety affect the potentia! deve%pment of adjacent vacant land. (11) in the case of flood plain applicafions, the following items sha/! be considered in addition to the aforementioned criteria: (A) The danger to life and property due to increased road heights or ve%cities caused by encroachments; (B) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream fo the injury of others or that they may block bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures; (C) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary condifions; (D) The susceptibilify of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage, and the effect of such damage on the individual owner, (E) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location; Planning Staff Report Case CUP98-37 September 28"' , 1998 Page 6 (F) The availability of aiternative locations not subject fo flooding for the proposed use; (G) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing flood p/ain deve%pment and flood p/ain development anticipated in the foreseeable future; (H) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area; (I) The safefy of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (J) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transparf oi the flood wate�s expected at the site; and such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of locating the proposed use in the flood plain. Section 28-81(c ), Conditional use permits. Conditiona! use permits may be granted after an application process and a pubfic hearing according to the provisions of section 28-14. A conditional use permit may be granted only when the following findings are made: (1) If is consistent with the intent of the critical area order and the city's comprehensive plan; (2) lt is compatible wifh uses in the immediate vicinity; and (3) tt is permitted by fhe ordinances of the community. � EXHIBIT A SITE PLAN '� , v i v ) �� . 2l � y� ` y l nI- � .- o , �, � " =:_ S c � �-- � � I I / �I c i 30 , � � � i � � -a �� S �� I �� / � — o 'U:� L¢, l�r. �; - �_ , ��,� �.< < � c%!f x�r.� e " <... r�GC.�,dd �j�� `��'�.✓ �,�c-��- J y� �� .,��.� v Heuse � � � � � � � � J I � �' y . d 6d S n� _---- r ev�v l�n� 3�3 O N�R`�`H•• ��r� \� -- o-S p �� P �, �J ,�'76 :�� -- � � , � .3 'u�'�" , � � ji ,50 ��'t i � � : �I /y"_ ._. ..�.,, . � � /� / O S� � j � . � -."`�', ��-.J t�o `�- j . � s � �- �� —_ � . --c � .. y . .�� ,� x eJ 0 �' �' �'xsv` {ble S�ieci A-LOORAbIE GAF.' `_ -- . "_ _."—.._— ..v_.:-.—� ... lN C � �. t � CS.� � � � � Q. A ^�� 1 c � � r Z � DOOR E3245°Iar^o � � . �, �i � EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CASE CUP98-37: Staniey Waidelich, Jr. has appiied for a conditionai use permit to construct an oversized garage at 7630 —113th Street South. Burbank summarized the staff report and e�iained that the applicant had appiied for a variance in 1997 to construct an oversized detached accessory structure, which was tabied pending review of the ordinance criteria. Staff has received a written withdrawal of the V97-41 application, so no formal action is needed. The application before the Commission tonight is based on the guidelines of the new ordinance. Burbank stated that staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions listed in the report. Sawyer asked about the intended use of proposed structure. Stan Waidelich, Jr., 7630 —113th Street, answered that it would be used for storage of a boat, a motor home, ATV's, and other items. He stated that he was in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. Waideiich requested that his appiication be piaced on the October 7 City Council agenda rather than on October 21. Lindquist stated that it couid be on the agenda for October 7. Auge opened fhe public hearFng. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Rice moved fo approve the application subjecf fo the seven condifions listed in fhe sfaff report Boyden seconded. 1. The condffionai use permit shall expire and become void if the approved sfrucfure is not builf within one year of fhe dafe of approval. 2. A revised building permif application shatl be submitted and approved by the City. 3. The samples of the eaterior colors and photographs or drawings of the archifecfural design of fhe accessory strucfure shall be submitted wifh fhe building permif application and a/so be approved by fhe City. 4. The trees and other vegetation on fhe site that §creen the propo§ed sfructure from adjacenf public roadways or adjacent properties shall be generally mainfained in good healfh or be reptaced wifh similar types and quantify of species. 5. Yehicular access to fhe proposed accessory structure sha/l de from and limited to the exisfing driveway Iocafion. 6. The use of fhe accessory sfructure for fhe operation of any home occupations not in conformance with section 28-82 fhrough section 28-90 of fhe City code is prohibited. 7. if future zoning or othersite development renders the accessory strucfure non- canforming, the sfrucfure shatl be brought fnto compliance wifh fhe applica6le ordinance criteria or removed. Motion passed unanimously.