Planning Commission Staff Report - AWS
City of Riders
Planning Dept.
1040 Harley-Davidson Way Sturgis, SD 57785 www.sturgis-sd.gov
Ph: (605) 347-4422 ext. 212 Fax: (605) 347-4861 [email protected]
Planning Commission Staff Report January 3, 2017 Laura Abernathy, Planning Coordinator Variances – Danny Lopez, 1304 Nellie Street
General Information Danny Lopez of 1304 Nellie Street has submitted an application requesting several variances to his property located in a Medium-Density Residential zoning district. The applicant would like to install an addition to an existing 20’x24’ garage and is requesting a 5’ variance to the 5’ setback, as well as a 7.54’ variance to the 10’ rear setback to build the addition. The garage in question was built in 1948 and is encroaching 3.5’ into the Ruby Street public right-of-way. The variance request for an addition would not further this encroachment. Due to the proximity of the garage to the public right-of-way, the applicant would also need a variance to the minimum 400 square foot hard surface parking requirement. Regardless of the outcome of the request, it will be required that the applicant complete an encroachment permit with the city, which is a renewable permit that will allow the existing structure to remain on city property. History On April 7, 2003, a former owner of the property, Mary Betz, had approached the Public Works Committee regarding a request to vacate a portion of Ruby Street to allow for an addition to the garage, as well as a variance for less than the required setback and an easement. It is presumed that the landowner at the time had planned on expanding this encroachment, hence the request for a vacation and easement. The committee resolved to recommend to City Council to approve an easement on the condition that the applicant presents the item to the Planning Commission. On April 15, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the variance request and request for an easement involving a further vacation of Ruby Street right-of-way (approximately 4.09’ x 6’ plus the width of the east eave overhang), on the contingency that if the garage is ever replaced, it will need to meet the current setbacks. At the May 5, 2003 public hearing, the City Attorney had met with the applicant and city staff and said the request is only possible if the City were to vacate the street right-of-way. The applicant stated she would meet with her contractor to determine a new plan for the addition. The request was then tabled by the City Council, and was never revisited. In July of 2003, the applicant was issued a building permit with the City to remodel the garage. Meade County Equalization records show that the improvements included a new loft above the garage, and the existing footprint was not altered. Notifications Neighboring landowner concerns: 19 official notifications were sent to neighboring land owners within 200’ of the property. Those notifications resulted in the following results based on assessed property values: Approve: 34.02% (6)
Disapprove: 17.15% (4) Not Returned/Implied Consent: 43.42% (9) The applicant’s property comprises 5.4% of the total property values but was not included in the above totals. "Too constraining to driveway for property owner behind this lot. That driveway is their only access." "I have concerns this may block driveway to Hine's property. It is not made clear on the photo." "Having cleaned snow for 30 yrs. on Hines driveway, 2-3 ft in depth, 4-5 ft in front of Hines garage. (Ruby St) will have a longer drift, higher on S. side of Ruby. Have to break the drift for snowblower. Wonder what new buyers (Hines house) will discover. Wait until new owner move in." "Has this been ok'd by the owner of the house and driveway next to property in question? The driveway beside it will be drifted with snow from a building that close to the north and west of it. Those are my only 2 concerns." "Not only would this proposal be unsightful, it would make snow removal difficult for our driveway. It would also make it difficult to see backing up out of the driveway." Recommendations The applicant was allowed to apply for a variance based on the interpretation of Article VI, Section H of Title 18, which is attached to this report. The property is located in an established area of town in which a variety of non-conforming setbacks exist in the area. The existing structure was built under different zoning rules and falls under a non-conforming category by modern standards. Therefore, the encroachment of the existing building was not self-imposed by the current owner. However, the unsuccessful attempt to expand the garage footprint by a previous owner will need to be addressed. Also, surrounding landowner’s concerns and the encroachment into public right-of-way should be considered in the review process. The neighbor most affected by the request has shown strong disapproval of the request, due to the unique shape of her property and the access to her garage running behind the applicant’s property. The attached findings report outlines additional guidelines to be reviewed in the process to consider a variance. Staff will require the applicant apply for an encroachment permit to alleviate any concerns with the existing garage’s encroachment into city property, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Budget Impact At this time there is no direct financial impact to the City budget.
2
In granting a variance, the Board shall ascertain that the following criteria are met: o Variances shall be granted only where special circumstances or conditions (such as exceptional narrowness, topography, or when the relaxation of a restriction of the code, granted by the Board of Adjustment shall provide a quantifiable benefit to the City and the surrounding neighborhood of the parcel) are fully described in the finding of the Board. The property in itself is not of an exceptional shape or size, however the existing structure to be altered is non-compliant in that is in encroaching 3.5’ into the city right-of-way. This was imposed back in 1948 under different zoning regulations. A variety of non-conforming setbacks exist in the area. The encroachment issue shall be addressed in the form of an encroachment application to be completed by the landowner and filed the Planning and Permitting Department. The neighboring lot in which this application will most affect is of an irregular shape. The “flagpole” lot behind the applicant’s property serves as the neighbor’s (1300 Nellie St) access to the garage on their property. In October of 2016, the previous owner of 1304 Nellie Street transferred the south 75’ of the west 7’ of Lot 7 to 1300 Nellie Street to help address access issues to the garage. o Variances shall not be granted to allow a use otherwise excluded from the particular district in which requested. The structure shall not be used for anything other than a garage. Applicant was made aware that any use beyond that is not allowed. o For reasons fully set forth in the findings of the board, the aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of any reasonable use of his land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variance, there must be a deprivation of beneficial use of land. The applicant would like to utilize as much of his property as possible to expand the garage to store his vehicles and investments. o Any variance granted under the provisions of this section shall be the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land. After considering the square footage of the proposed structures and lot size, approximately 70% of the property would remain free of permanent structures. This meets the requirements set forth in Title 18.05.04, Medium-Density Residential Housing zoning requirements, in that all lots shall not have more than 45% of its total area covered by permanent structures. The new addition will not further the encroachment into City right-of-way. Yet, this does not address potential issues that may arise from allowing a non-conforming building to be expanded. o The granting of any variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, detrimental to the public welfare or in conflict with the comprehensive plan for development. Comments from the surrounding neighbors have indicated that there is concern that the expansion may affect the neighbor’s access to the garage and visibility to the public right-of-way. Additional comments indicated that snow removal may be an issue if the structure is expanded. The neighbor in which this request will most affect has shown strong disapproval of the request for numerous reasons.
Proposed Addition Pending Approval of Variances
(Existing)
NE LL
IE S
T
Date: 12/21/2017
RU BY S
T
Applicant Property Line Existing Garage Proposed Garage Addition
0
10
20
40
60 Feet
For illustrative purposes only
Existing structure - Ruby St
Existing structure looking west
Existing structure looking east
Area of Proposed Addition
CITY OF STURGIS
1984 REVISED ORDINANCES
TITLE 18 - 100
ARTICLE VI NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES OF LAND Any otherwise lawful use of land or structure existing at the time of adoption of these regulations may be continued, maintained and repaired, except as otherwise provided in this article. A. CONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING USES: The lawful operation of a nonconforming use as such use existing on the effective date of this Ordinance, or any amendment thereto, by which the use became a nonconforming use, may be continued; provided, however, that the number of dwelling units in a nonconforming dwelling use shall not be increased over or exceed the number of dwelling units existing in the nonconforming use on the effective date of this Ordinance. B. EXTENSION OF NONCONFORMING USES IN STRUCTURES: A nonconforming use in a structure may be extended throughout the structure provided no structural alterations, except those required by law or ordinance, are made therein. C. CHANGES IN NONCONFORMING USES: The nonconforming use of a building may be changed to another nonconforming use that is in the same (or higher) use group as the previous nonconforming use until the building is removed; provided, however, that a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained before the change is made. D. TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMING USES: Except as hereinafter provided, a nonconforming use that has been abandoned or discontinued for more than one (1) year shall not hereafter be reestablished. In the event of such discontinuance or abandonment for more than one (1) year, the Building inspector shall give notice to the property owner by registered or certified mail that the nonconforming use is to be eliminated within a time frame set by the Common Council in each instance. E. OPEN LAND NONCONFORMING USE OF: A nonconforming use not enclosed in a building or structure, or one in which the use of the land is a use exercised principally out-of-doors and outside of a building or structure shall, after three (3) years form the date of notification, become a prohibited and unlawful use and shall be discontinued. F. DESTRUCTION, DAMAGE OR OBSOLESCENCE OF STRUCTURE: The right to operate and maintain any nonconforming use shall terminate whenever the structure, or structures, in which the nonconforming use is operated and maintained, are damaged, destroyed or become obsolete or substandard beyond the limits hereinafter established for the termination of nonconforming structures. G. CONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: Except as hereinafter provided, any nonconforming structures may be occupied and operated and maintained in a state of good repair. H. ENLARGEMENT OR EXTENSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: A nonconforming structure in which a nonconforming use is operated shall not be enlarged or extended; a nonconforming structure is which only permitted uses are operated may be enlarged or extended if the
CITY OF STURGIS
1984 REVISED ORDINANCES
TITLE 18 - 101
enlargement or extension can be made in compliance with all of the provisions of this Ordinance established for structures in the district tin which the nonconforming structure is located. I. RESTORATION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: A nonconforming structure damaged in any manner and from any cause whatsoever to the extent of not more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost may be restored, provided restoration is completed within one (1) year of the date of the damage; provide that if a nonconforming residential structure is damaged to the extent of more than 50 percent (50%) of is replacement cost it may be restored by the person who is the owner of the nonconforming structure at the time that it became a nonconforming use and amy restore said structure providing restoration is completed within one (1) year from the date of the damage.
Chairman Iverson called the April 15, 2003 Planning Commission meeting to order with the following members present: Ron Tysdal
J u d y Iverson
Roger Call
Dean Flage
C l i f f Linn
Penny Green
Also present was M a r k Mechling, Building Inspector. Motion by Call, seconded by Flage and carried to approve the minutes of the April 1, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Penny Green entered the meeting. A sign variance request was received f o r m Sturgis Pizza Ranch, 2711 Lazelle S t r e e t , to allow the following sign measurements: 7.50 x 10 Double f a c e pole sign f o r 7 5 S F 1 x 10 Reader Board (under pole sign) f o r 10 S F 3.75 x 5 Single f a c e logo wall sign f o r 18.75 S F Channel l e t t e r s f o r 18 S F 8 x 17 Existing can sign on 6 0 f t pole f o r 136 S F Motion by Call, seconded by Tysdal and carried to approve sign variance as requested. A variance request was received f r o m Dean A b e l e , 7 4 7 Lazelle S t r e e t , (Lot 23 % W | of Lot 22, Block 7, McMillan's Eastern Addition) to permit construction of a 20' x 40' detached garage/shop with less than required side y a r d setback. Motion by Tysdal, seconded by Flage and carried to approve variance request as presented. A variance request was received f r o m M a r y B e t z , 1304 Nellie S t r e e t , (S 2 Lots 712 less E 18' of S 2 of Lot 7, Block 34, McMillan's Eastern A d d i t i o n , to permit construction of a addition on an existing detached garage with less than required side yard setback. T h e owner also needs an easement involving a f u r t h e r vacation of Ruby S t r e e t R O W (approximately 4.09' x 6' + width of t h e east eave overhang). Motion by Call, seconded by Linn and carried to approve the above presented request contingent t h a t if the garage is ever replaced it will need to meet the current setbacks. Paul Lindstrom appeared b e f o r e the Planning Commission to get their opinion on possible development of property located on the north side of Sturgis. He is proposing construction of a 8 plex on property. Planning Commission d i r e c t e d him to bring plans to the A p r i l 2 9 , 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
Ken McNenny & Bryan C a r t e r presented plans on a proposed addition of a deck to The Knuckle. This will be a two story covered deck with the middle open. This s t r u c t u r e will abut The Knuckle building and the setbacks will align with the existing south building of Turkey Graphix which is a 2 7 rear yard setback instead of the 30' required setback. Planning Commission f e l t the 27' rear y a r d setback was appropriate without a formal variance application. Motion by Call, seconded by Flage and carried to approve the sign ordinance as presented. Motion by Call, seconded by Tysdal and carried to adjourn meeting. The next regular meeting is scheduled f o r April 29, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. Jeanie Shyne
Planning Dept.
1040 Harley-Davidson Way Sturgis, SD 57785 www.sturgis-sd.gov
Ph: (605) 347-4422 ext. 212 Fax: (605) 347-4861 [email protected]
Planning Commission Staff Report January 3, 2017 Laura Abernathy, Planning Coordinator Variances – Danny Lopez, 1304 Nellie Street
General Information Danny Lopez of 1304 Nellie Street has submitted an application requesting several variances to his property located in a Medium-Density Residential zoning district. The applicant would like to install an addition to an existing 20’x24’ garage and is requesting a 5’ variance to the 5’ setback, as well as a 7.54’ variance to the 10’ rear setback to build the addition. The garage in question was built in 1948 and is encroaching 3.5’ into the Ruby Street public right-of-way. The variance request for an addition would not further this encroachment. Due to the proximity of the garage to the public right-of-way, the applicant would also need a variance to the minimum 400 square foot hard surface parking requirement. Regardless of the outcome of the request, it will be required that the applicant complete an encroachment permit with the city, which is a renewable permit that will allow the existing structure to remain on city property. History On April 7, 2003, a former owner of the property, Mary Betz, had approached the Public Works Committee regarding a request to vacate a portion of Ruby Street to allow for an addition to the garage, as well as a variance for less than the required setback and an easement. It is presumed that the landowner at the time had planned on expanding this encroachment, hence the request for a vacation and easement. The committee resolved to recommend to City Council to approve an easement on the condition that the applicant presents the item to the Planning Commission. On April 15, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the variance request and request for an easement involving a further vacation of Ruby Street right-of-way (approximately 4.09’ x 6’ plus the width of the east eave overhang), on the contingency that if the garage is ever replaced, it will need to meet the current setbacks. At the May 5, 2003 public hearing, the City Attorney had met with the applicant and city staff and said the request is only possible if the City were to vacate the street right-of-way. The applicant stated she would meet with her contractor to determine a new plan for the addition. The request was then tabled by the City Council, and was never revisited. In July of 2003, the applicant was issued a building permit with the City to remodel the garage. Meade County Equalization records show that the improvements included a new loft above the garage, and the existing footprint was not altered. Notifications Neighboring landowner concerns: 19 official notifications were sent to neighboring land owners within 200’ of the property. Those notifications resulted in the following results based on assessed property values: Approve: 34.02% (6)
Disapprove: 17.15% (4) Not Returned/Implied Consent: 43.42% (9) The applicant’s property comprises 5.4% of the total property values but was not included in the above totals. "Too constraining to driveway for property owner behind this lot. That driveway is their only access." "I have concerns this may block driveway to Hine's property. It is not made clear on the photo." "Having cleaned snow for 30 yrs. on Hines driveway, 2-3 ft in depth, 4-5 ft in front of Hines garage. (Ruby St) will have a longer drift, higher on S. side of Ruby. Have to break the drift for snowblower. Wonder what new buyers (Hines house) will discover. Wait until new owner move in." "Has this been ok'd by the owner of the house and driveway next to property in question? The driveway beside it will be drifted with snow from a building that close to the north and west of it. Those are my only 2 concerns." "Not only would this proposal be unsightful, it would make snow removal difficult for our driveway. It would also make it difficult to see backing up out of the driveway." Recommendations The applicant was allowed to apply for a variance based on the interpretation of Article VI, Section H of Title 18, which is attached to this report. The property is located in an established area of town in which a variety of non-conforming setbacks exist in the area. The existing structure was built under different zoning rules and falls under a non-conforming category by modern standards. Therefore, the encroachment of the existing building was not self-imposed by the current owner. However, the unsuccessful attempt to expand the garage footprint by a previous owner will need to be addressed. Also, surrounding landowner’s concerns and the encroachment into public right-of-way should be considered in the review process. The neighbor most affected by the request has shown strong disapproval of the request, due to the unique shape of her property and the access to her garage running behind the applicant’s property. The attached findings report outlines additional guidelines to be reviewed in the process to consider a variance. Staff will require the applicant apply for an encroachment permit to alleviate any concerns with the existing garage’s encroachment into city property, regardless of the outcome of the variance request. Budget Impact At this time there is no direct financial impact to the City budget.
2
In granting a variance, the Board shall ascertain that the following criteria are met: o Variances shall be granted only where special circumstances or conditions (such as exceptional narrowness, topography, or when the relaxation of a restriction of the code, granted by the Board of Adjustment shall provide a quantifiable benefit to the City and the surrounding neighborhood of the parcel) are fully described in the finding of the Board. The property in itself is not of an exceptional shape or size, however the existing structure to be altered is non-compliant in that is in encroaching 3.5’ into the city right-of-way. This was imposed back in 1948 under different zoning regulations. A variety of non-conforming setbacks exist in the area. The encroachment issue shall be addressed in the form of an encroachment application to be completed by the landowner and filed the Planning and Permitting Department. The neighboring lot in which this application will most affect is of an irregular shape. The “flagpole” lot behind the applicant’s property serves as the neighbor’s (1300 Nellie St) access to the garage on their property. In October of 2016, the previous owner of 1304 Nellie Street transferred the south 75’ of the west 7’ of Lot 7 to 1300 Nellie Street to help address access issues to the garage. o Variances shall not be granted to allow a use otherwise excluded from the particular district in which requested. The structure shall not be used for anything other than a garage. Applicant was made aware that any use beyond that is not allowed. o For reasons fully set forth in the findings of the board, the aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of any reasonable use of his land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variance, there must be a deprivation of beneficial use of land. The applicant would like to utilize as much of his property as possible to expand the garage to store his vehicles and investments. o Any variance granted under the provisions of this section shall be the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land. After considering the square footage of the proposed structures and lot size, approximately 70% of the property would remain free of permanent structures. This meets the requirements set forth in Title 18.05.04, Medium-Density Residential Housing zoning requirements, in that all lots shall not have more than 45% of its total area covered by permanent structures. The new addition will not further the encroachment into City right-of-way. Yet, this does not address potential issues that may arise from allowing a non-conforming building to be expanded. o The granting of any variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, detrimental to the public welfare or in conflict with the comprehensive plan for development. Comments from the surrounding neighbors have indicated that there is concern that the expansion may affect the neighbor’s access to the garage and visibility to the public right-of-way. Additional comments indicated that snow removal may be an issue if the structure is expanded. The neighbor in which this request will most affect has shown strong disapproval of the request for numerous reasons.
Proposed Addition Pending Approval of Variances
(Existing)
NE LL
IE S
T
Date: 12/21/2017
RU BY S
T
Applicant Property Line Existing Garage Proposed Garage Addition
0
10
20
40
60 Feet
For illustrative purposes only
Existing structure - Ruby St
Existing structure looking west
Existing structure looking east
Area of Proposed Addition
CITY OF STURGIS
1984 REVISED ORDINANCES
TITLE 18 - 100
ARTICLE VI NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES OF LAND Any otherwise lawful use of land or structure existing at the time of adoption of these regulations may be continued, maintained and repaired, except as otherwise provided in this article. A. CONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING USES: The lawful operation of a nonconforming use as such use existing on the effective date of this Ordinance, or any amendment thereto, by which the use became a nonconforming use, may be continued; provided, however, that the number of dwelling units in a nonconforming dwelling use shall not be increased over or exceed the number of dwelling units existing in the nonconforming use on the effective date of this Ordinance. B. EXTENSION OF NONCONFORMING USES IN STRUCTURES: A nonconforming use in a structure may be extended throughout the structure provided no structural alterations, except those required by law or ordinance, are made therein. C. CHANGES IN NONCONFORMING USES: The nonconforming use of a building may be changed to another nonconforming use that is in the same (or higher) use group as the previous nonconforming use until the building is removed; provided, however, that a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained before the change is made. D. TERMINATION OF NONCONFORMING USES: Except as hereinafter provided, a nonconforming use that has been abandoned or discontinued for more than one (1) year shall not hereafter be reestablished. In the event of such discontinuance or abandonment for more than one (1) year, the Building inspector shall give notice to the property owner by registered or certified mail that the nonconforming use is to be eliminated within a time frame set by the Common Council in each instance. E. OPEN LAND NONCONFORMING USE OF: A nonconforming use not enclosed in a building or structure, or one in which the use of the land is a use exercised principally out-of-doors and outside of a building or structure shall, after three (3) years form the date of notification, become a prohibited and unlawful use and shall be discontinued. F. DESTRUCTION, DAMAGE OR OBSOLESCENCE OF STRUCTURE: The right to operate and maintain any nonconforming use shall terminate whenever the structure, or structures, in which the nonconforming use is operated and maintained, are damaged, destroyed or become obsolete or substandard beyond the limits hereinafter established for the termination of nonconforming structures. G. CONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: Except as hereinafter provided, any nonconforming structures may be occupied and operated and maintained in a state of good repair. H. ENLARGEMENT OR EXTENSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: A nonconforming structure in which a nonconforming use is operated shall not be enlarged or extended; a nonconforming structure is which only permitted uses are operated may be enlarged or extended if the
CITY OF STURGIS
1984 REVISED ORDINANCES
TITLE 18 - 101
enlargement or extension can be made in compliance with all of the provisions of this Ordinance established for structures in the district tin which the nonconforming structure is located. I. RESTORATION OF DAMAGED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: A nonconforming structure damaged in any manner and from any cause whatsoever to the extent of not more than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement cost may be restored, provided restoration is completed within one (1) year of the date of the damage; provide that if a nonconforming residential structure is damaged to the extent of more than 50 percent (50%) of is replacement cost it may be restored by the person who is the owner of the nonconforming structure at the time that it became a nonconforming use and amy restore said structure providing restoration is completed within one (1) year from the date of the damage.
Chairman Iverson called the April 15, 2003 Planning Commission meeting to order with the following members present: Ron Tysdal
J u d y Iverson
Roger Call
Dean Flage
C l i f f Linn
Penny Green
Also present was M a r k Mechling, Building Inspector. Motion by Call, seconded by Flage and carried to approve the minutes of the April 1, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Penny Green entered the meeting. A sign variance request was received f o r m Sturgis Pizza Ranch, 2711 Lazelle S t r e e t , to allow the following sign measurements: 7.50 x 10 Double f a c e pole sign f o r 7 5 S F 1 x 10 Reader Board (under pole sign) f o r 10 S F 3.75 x 5 Single f a c e logo wall sign f o r 18.75 S F Channel l e t t e r s f o r 18 S F 8 x 17 Existing can sign on 6 0 f t pole f o r 136 S F Motion by Call, seconded by Tysdal and carried to approve sign variance as requested. A variance request was received f r o m Dean A b e l e , 7 4 7 Lazelle S t r e e t , (Lot 23 % W | of Lot 22, Block 7, McMillan's Eastern Addition) to permit construction of a 20' x 40' detached garage/shop with less than required side y a r d setback. Motion by Tysdal, seconded by Flage and carried to approve variance request as presented. A variance request was received f r o m M a r y B e t z , 1304 Nellie S t r e e t , (S 2 Lots 712 less E 18' of S 2 of Lot 7, Block 34, McMillan's Eastern A d d i t i o n , to permit construction of a addition on an existing detached garage with less than required side yard setback. T h e owner also needs an easement involving a f u r t h e r vacation of Ruby S t r e e t R O W (approximately 4.09' x 6' + width of t h e east eave overhang). Motion by Call, seconded by Linn and carried to approve the above presented request contingent t h a t if the garage is ever replaced it will need to meet the current setbacks. Paul Lindstrom appeared b e f o r e the Planning Commission to get their opinion on possible development of property located on the north side of Sturgis. He is proposing construction of a 8 plex on property. Planning Commission d i r e c t e d him to bring plans to the A p r i l 2 9 , 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
Ken McNenny & Bryan C a r t e r presented plans on a proposed addition of a deck to The Knuckle. This will be a two story covered deck with the middle open. This s t r u c t u r e will abut The Knuckle building and the setbacks will align with the existing south building of Turkey Graphix which is a 2 7 rear yard setback instead of the 30' required setback. Planning Commission f e l t the 27' rear y a r d setback was appropriate without a formal variance application. Motion by Call, seconded by Flage and carried to approve the sign ordinance as presented. Motion by Call, seconded by Tysdal and carried to adjourn meeting. The next regular meeting is scheduled f o r April 29, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. Jeanie Shyne
