01-24-1995 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 1995 Page 3 . Ach stated that condition could be attached to either the conditional use or the variance request. Gary Schmitz explained that normally, agricultural uses require a minimal review by staff. He felt that Mr. Froland was under the impression that since his property is being used for agricultural purposes, the building addition would be considered as an accessory building in an agricultural zone. Commissioner Kreger questioned whether or not his neighbors can see the subject building from their property. Mr. Froland stated that it would be visible to his neighbor on the south. Commissioner Kreger questioned the use of the property. Mr. Froland stated that he has been farming since 1989 and that he was not aware the zoning had changed from A 1 to R 1 a until he was contacted by staff. Commissioner Kreger questioned whether Mr. Froland has considered relocating the building. Mr. Froland stated that the original building has been in the floodplain for approximately 5 years and he has not had a problem to date. Mr. Froland explained that he planned to use the proposed addition for hay storage and would need to figure out a way to store it off the floor. COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE 693 FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST BY ANTHONY FROLAND FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ADDITION (PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. V 94-17), BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER SIMILAR RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER LARGE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES IN THE R1A ZONING DISTRICT. . 2. BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, FORTY (40) ACRES, IN AN R1A ZONING DISTRICT, LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AN AGRICULTURAL USE, WHICH REQUIRES LARGER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. 3. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. AND FURTHER, THAT IF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SUBDIVIDED IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED THAT THE BUILDING BE DISMANTLED. Commissioner Minton expressed his concern that the applicant began construction without first obtaining a building permit, and then continued construction after a stop order was issued. He added that he wished to make it clear to the public that the Planning Commission has no intention of setting a precedent for allowing residents to begin construction without obtaining the necessary permits. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. . COMMISSIONER MINTON MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MR. FROLAND TO CONSTRUCT A THIRTY (30) FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED WITHIN THE FLOODWAY DISTRICT (PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. CU 94-38), WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: