03-26-1996 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1996 Page 5 . 300 foot setback; there should not be a distinction between building types. It would also be easier to apply the setback requirement if the setback was measured from a fixed point, such as a property line. . Livestock fences are currently subject to a 200 foot setback. It is not clear why it is acceptable to have livestock 200 feet from the adjacent house if they are outside but they have to be 300 feet away if they are inside a metal building. The Zoning Code also makes a distinction between platted property and uplatted property. . In the R 1 a zone and A 1 zone agricultural uses require a CUP if they occur on a platted lot; it does not matter what size the lot is. A person could have a 10 acre platted lot and a CUP is required for agricultural uses. If that same person had a 5.5 acre unplatted lot, they could conduct the same activity without a CUP. It is not clear why there is a distinction between platted and unplatted property. If proximity to neighboring residences is the concern, lot size not based on platted or unplatted conditions should be a sufficient criteria for determining if a CUP is required. . Scott indicated there does not appear to by any constraints that would prohibit the applicant from complying with the 300 foot setback, which would place the storage building in the back yard. Staff was also unclear as to what undue hardship the applicant would face by complying with the required setback. Staff feels this request does not meet the five standards required to grant a variance. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow one horse on the property with the conditions that one acre of pasture are be provided and, that the fence enclosing the pasture must be at least 200 feet from the neighbor's house. Paula Kowalzek, 14225 214th Avenue NW, stated there was no home on the neighboring property when their metal building was constructed. Mrs. Kowalzek stated that complying with the setback from the neighbor's home would mean relocating the metal building where their current residence is located. She stated they are not able to relocate the barn in their back yard due to the location of the mound septic system. Mr. Kowalzek stated that in checking out the possibility of moving the metal building, he was told it would essentially destroy it. Paula Kowalzek explained they will also be requesting a variance for the fence. She submitted a letter from the adjacent neighbor which states they have no objection to the location of the fence. Paul Kowalzek stated that he would be willing to move the fence back 25 feet and plant a grove of trees to buffer the site from the neighboring residence. . Commissioner Anderson asked if the Kowalzeks planned to have more than one horse. Paula Kowalzek stated it would depend on whether or not the variance for the barn and fence were approved before they would know if they could come up with 2 acres of pasture area. She added that if the variances are not approved, they may not even have 1 acre of pasture. Commissioner Minton