12/13/2000 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Corson stated he voted against the motion since EIFS was not being considered as an alternative. B. Marvin Emly, 590 62°' Street, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining Marvin Emly is requesting permission to construct a 28 -foot by 32 -foot accessory building on his property at 590 62nd Street which is zoned rural and consists of ten acres on the south side of 62nd Street containing his home and four (4) accessory buildings. One of the buildings was damaged in a storm this past summer and must be removed. Mr. Emly would like to replace it with the requested building, however, the Zoning Ordinance allows only three (3) accessory buildings on a parcel of property between ten and 20 acres in size. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the need for number of buildings and one from the section of the Ordin nonconforming structures. Staff reviewed the findings of fact that need to be indicated staff does not believe this variance cr not justify a hardship other than financial. buildings and build one larger building th Ordinance. riances, one from the ing to ce consideration and be et in this case since it does ld remove the two accessory e within the requirements of the In response to Mr. Rafferty, M ined the grandfathered provision. Mr. Zych asked if the two stated he is not sure w combined since they ar applicant desire t an be combined to make it acceptable. Mr. Smyser unty would allow these two tax parcels to be ated by 62nd Street. It may also cause a problem should the the parcels. Mr. Zych asked if t : oard can consider both parcels as if they were one parcel. Mr. Smyser noted the ap icant has the right to sell the northern parcel which would leave this structure existing on the southern parcel. Discussion occurred regarding the options to attach the structures, possibly via a covered walkway. Mr. Smyser stated one possibility to avoid increasing the nonconformity is to construct the new structure as attached to Building #2 with the middle building being removed. Then it could be considered as one structure without increasing the nonconformity. Mr. Smyser explained that square footage is not an issue. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Marvin Emly, applicant, stated he can tie Buildings #2 and #4 together into one large building but there is a distance between the two buildings. • • •