Adopt Resolution #23-239 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Square Footage on an Existing Detached Accessory Structure at 14275 Alpaca St NW (Project No. 23-112); Case of Jay and Carol McDonald

The City has received a Land Use Application from Jay and Carol McDonald (the "Applicant") for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a proposed addition to an existing detached accessory building on the property located at 14275 Alpaca Street NW (the "Subject Property").  The application also included a request for a variance to the driveway setback requirement, which the Planning Commission approved on September 28, 2023.

The Subject Property is just over three (3) acres in size and is located in the R-1 Residential (MUSA) - 80 district.  The properties to the south and west are also zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) - 80, while the properties to the north and east are zoned B-2 Highway Business District.  There is an existing, detached accessory building on the Subject Property that is 2,700 square feet in size, which is the maximum size allowed based on the Subject Property's size per City Code Section 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings).  The Applicant is proposing to construct a fourteen foot by fifty foot (14' x 50') carport on the north side of the existing accessory building.  This would result in an overage of 700 square feet of detached accessory building space, which prompted the need for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

The Applicant has stated that the roof of the carport will begin at the peak of the accessory building's roof.  It will consist of the same material and color as the existing roof.  The proposed carport is intended to provide overhead shelter for a motorhome.  The carport will exceed all required setbacks from property lines and from the septic system and well (while the Subject Property is zoned R-1 Residential (MUSA) - 80, this entire neighborhood is still on private utilities).

The original application was only for a CUP to address additional detached accessory building square footage.  However, as Staff began reviewing the request, it became clear that an existing driveway serving the Subject Property not only encroached on the required five (5) foot setback from a side property line, but also encroached onto the neighboring property to the south.  This prompted the Applicant to submit another land use application seeking a variance to the driveway setback standard.  This encroachment is not readily visible to the general public and has no impact on any other properties other than the Subject Property and the adjacent property owner.

The driveway setback serves multiple purposes.  First, in general, it keeps impervious surfacing out of drainage and utlity easements.  Secondly, it provides some space for snow storage without impacting neighboring properties.  There are no drainage and utility easements along the southern lot line of the Subject Property (or the northern boundary of the adjacent parcel).  Secondly, as these are acreage lots (minimum of 2.5 acres in size), there is no impact related to snow storage.  The Applicant stated he has spoken with the adjacent 'impacted' property owner about the driveway encroachment and that the adjacent property owner has no objection to the current location of the driveway.  The Applicant has prepared a draft of a Driveway Encroachment Agreement (attached to this case) that he and his neighbor would execute (and record against both properties) should the variance request be approved.

The Applicant stated that there had previously been drainage issues on the Subject Property resulting in water in the basement.  A previous owner of the Subject Property ended up creating a quasi-drainage basin in the rear yard to address the drainage problem.  This ultimately limited options for placement of a detached accessory building and led to the building being installed at the minimum setback for an accessory building.  The Applicant has stated that the driveway was installed around the detached accessory building to avoid the need to back up for long distances, creating a safer maneuvering process.
 
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 28, 2023, regarding the request for both a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance.  There were no written or verbal comments received regarding the request.  The Planning Commission serves in a quasi-judicial capacity when an application for a variance is considered.  The Planning Commission did approve Resolution #23-240 granting a variance for a zero-foot setback for the existing driveway.

Alternatives:

Alternative 1: Approve the request for a CUP to allow an additional 700 square feet of accessory building space to accommodate a 14' x 50' carport to be added to the north side of the existing accessory building.  The additional square footage is for a carport, which will essentially be an extension of the existing roofline and will not have walls.  The overage is reasonable and actually less than many similar past applications.  Staff supports this alternative.

Alternative 2: Deny the Applicant's request for a CUP for additional accessory building space.  The request for additional square footage is reasonable and will not negatively impact any surrounding properties. Staff does not support this alternative.

 


 

All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility.

The Planning Commission recommends approval of the CUP.

Motion to adopt Resolution #23-239 approving a Conditional Use Permit for 700 square feet of accessory building space to allow the addition of a carport on the north side of the existing detached accessory building.