Agenda - Council - 09/28/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission felt the variance was the best way given what is shown and the general agreement that this is an acceptable plan. Board Member Van Scoy expressed concern with the precedent being set. He noted there will still be other blocks in other developments with multiple tenants and those issues will be there anyway. He does not see those as overriding reasons. Chairperson Nixt asked what the status is on a revision to the TC-2 Zoning District to address the F.A,R. and multiple dwelling unit issue. Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon replied staff is trying to deal with what is currently before them. There needs to be discussions with the Town Center people as to what their visions are so they can see how some of those relate to what they are trying to do. Codes should not be created that will be impeding to Town Center, but it also needs to be certain that the City's values and concerns are addressed. Staff does not have an answer at this time whether or not the zoning code should be changed relative to the multiple principal buildings. With the floor area ratio, it may make sense to lower that. If they were not to grant the variance, and were to still require one building per lot, that can be done, but there will be other compromises that need to be made regarding street frontage. He explained Coburns and the rest of the retail places overlook the pond without street frontage, and there would have to be a variance to allow for that configuration. He does not think there is any way to get around it; if not this variance there will be a need for additional variances that would be decided up or down at the appropriate time. Board Member Van Scoy questioned if a variance is an appropriate action for this and allowed for within the City code. Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon responded in the affirmative, it is either practical difficulty or undue hardship. He advised staff believes there are positive benefits to allowing this with the ability for shared parking and other amenities on the site that might not be available if they were to chop it up into lots. Board Member Van Scoy inquired where additional variances would be required if this variance were not to be approved. Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon reviewed the buildings without road frontage. He explained he is not saying the lines cannot be drawn, but in the end he would question if that is desirable to do. Board Member Van Scoy noted this allows more flexibility in arranging things. Chairperson Nixt noted when they were modifying the Town Center district they looked at a number of developments similarly situated. He inquired if the trend is towards multiple developments on a single lot in a commercial context, and if it is limited to commercial. He explained he is trying to determine if this is unique to this development. Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon replied it is more common in larger retail areas with either big box or multiple buildings around an amenity. A PUD gives a lot of Board of Adjustment/August 5, 2004 Page 10 of 11