03-26-1996 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page .4 . FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 96-2, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE CITY ENGINEER'S LETTER, AND THE FACT THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL OF STAFF'S COMMENTS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED MARCH 25, 1996, BE INCORPORATED INTO THE REVISED SET OF PLANS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 2. ALL OF THE CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS IN THE MEMO DATED MARCH 22, 1996, BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 3. ALL OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1. CHAIR DILLON OPPOSED. . Staff report by Scott Harlicker. Paul and Paula Kowalzek are requesting a 127.5 foot setback variance from the required 300 foot setback between an agricultural building and adjacent dwelling. They are also requesting a conditional use permit to have horses on a platted lot of less than five acres. The property (approximately 3 acres in size) is located at 14225 214th Avenue NW, North Meadows subdivision. The applicants received a building permit to construct a pole barn with the understanding it would be used for storage. When the applicants began construction of a split rail fence, the building inspector notified them that if the building was going to be used for agricultural purposes, it would have to be 300 feet from the neighbor's house, and the fence would have to be 200 feet from the neighbor's house. It was at this point that they applied for the variance and conditional use permit. A variance is required because the building is proposed to be used to house a horse. During the review of this request, several questions arose regarding agricultural buildings, fences, setbacks and the distinction between platted and unplatted property, as follows: . It is unclear if the 300 foot setback from the adjacent residence for agricultural buildings applies only if the building is constructed of metal. The Zoning Code lists metal skin agricultural buildings as requiring the 300 foot setback. It is not clear if agricultural buildings constructed of other materials, such as wood, require the same setback as metal buildings. It would seem that they should. . . If it is the intent to keep a 300 foot separation between agricultural activity and adjacent residences, the agricultural activity should be subject to the