Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Future plans <br /> <br />A. We plan to reside in home for 15 to 20 years. <br />1. Within this time we do plan to add on to our home, but the <br />financial obligation is too great and currently not attainable.. <br />B. Storage for the future <br />1. We plan to have children and would like to store their toys inside <br />the accessory building. <br />2. Future endeavors of buying a boat, which, we would like to store <br />inside the new garage. <br />C. We are fond of the outdoors and numerous sports. Within 15-20 years many <br />things can stack up and portray a home that is not maintained. It is my <br />priority and duty to maintain my home and yard as to not affect those <br />neighbors around our property. <br /> <br />v. Summary <br /> <br />A. We are well below "'The Maximum Total Surface Area." Refer to general <br />requirements #6. (less than 10 percent) <br /> <br />1. principal structure + existing garage + driveway / lot size <br />1138 + 440 + 1261 = 1959 square feet <br /> <br />1959/27769 = .0705 percent <br /> <br />B. "Detached Accessory Building Size Limit" calculation allows for: <br />(Refer to general requirements #3) <br />1. 40% rear yard limitation: <br />87.8' x 30' x.4 = 1053.6 square feet <br /> <br />C. I have spoken with the chief building inspector. I was told that the only <br />condition I must meet is the ''Maximum Total Surface Area" in order <br />to build an 864 square foot garage. By the calculations provided we are <br />well below the 30% rule. (refer to general requirements #6) <br /> <br />D. 864 square feet is maximum allowed by "The Building Size Limit" without a <br />conditional use permit. We feel as though we are being penalized for wanting <br />more and planning for the future. <br /> <br />\Ve feel there should be some compromise on our part, as well as, the <br />planning commission. Somewhere in between 864 and 1007. <br />