Laserfiche WebLink
Agenda Number D.3 <br />CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY <br />DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT <br />PLANNING AND ZONING <br />APPLICATION STAFF REPORT <br />TO: Hugo Planning Commission <br />FROM: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director <br />SUBJECT: Wayne Scanlan. Variance and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request for <br />properties located south of 177th Street and west of Henna Avenue North. <br />DATE: December 12, 2019, for the Planning Commission Meeting of December 19, 2019 <br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Agricultural (AG) <br />ZONING: Future Urban Service (FUS) <br />REVIEW DEADLINE: 120 -days — March 5, 2020 <br />1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: <br />The applicant is requesting approval a variance for the property located at 17530 Henna Avenue <br />North for the property to have 0 feet from street frontage, where 300 feet is required by ordinance. <br />The property is an existing land locked parcel with an existing home. <br />The applicant is also requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for shared driveway <br />that provides access to 3 parcels, parcels A, B, and C (17530 Henna Avenue North, 17590 Henna <br />Avenue North, and 7355 177th Street North,). Shared driveways require approval of a CUP. The <br />shared driveway is already established and has been used to access the properties for several years. <br />In addition, the applicant is requesting that an existing covenant be released that is against the <br />properties at 7355 177th Street North and 17530 Henna Avenue North. The covenant states that <br />the these properties shall be considered as one lot and cannot be sold separately. <br />2. BACKGROUND: <br />In 1994, the applicant received approval for a minor subdivision of parcels A and B, which was <br />one 20 acre lot at that time. The applicant also received approval to have a shared driveway over <br />parcel B to access parcel A. The applicant owns parcel C and in an effort to not need a variance <br />for the landlocked parcel A, the applicant agreed to combine parcel A and C. Washington County <br />would not allow the lot combination because the parcels are in separate Sections. The City then <br />required a covenant to be recorded against parcel A and C to be considered as one lot and that <br />