Agenda - Council - 07/23/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1. That the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Enhanced Landscaping There is room for additional plantings within the bufferyard area, which will aid in better screening and buffering the proposed facility from the existing residential property. Staff is recommending that any additional trees be evergreeen trees to aid in year round screening and has outlined two options for the Planning Commission to consider in achieving the added plantings. Adjacent Zoning When the Bunker Lake Industrial Park was first introduced for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment for the residential property to the west of the Subject Property was included in the proposed rezoning for E-3; however, it became an exception to that zoning amendment for further analysis as to the ultimate future use of that property. Staff would recommend restarting the amendment of the adjacent residential property to be zoned E-3 Employment District. The adjacent residential property currently operates as a quasi business parcel as there is an active home occupation on the property. Finally, if the residential parcel in question is to be subject to a Zoning Amendment to the E-3 Employment District it would have negated the need for this buffer. Adjacent Property Due to actions of the adjacent neighbor, the entire development site is required to shift when compared to the industrial development to the south. As a result, the changes in elevation and road curvature create a hardship in vehicular turning movements. Intent of Zoning Code Sections of City Code seem to indicate an attempt to create separate setbacks for parking/maneuvering areas and buildings, but stops short of explicitly allowing a setback of forty (40) feet for parking/drive aisles. With that in mind, Staff does not believe the 40 foot setback can be allowed by right, but could be allowed via Variance. Staff is planning a comprehensive zoning amendment to the zoning code, and this conflicting language is on the list for correction. Development Agreement and Associated Agreements Included with this case for consideration by the City Council is the proposed Development Agreement. Standard development fees were previously collected on the Subject Property when it was originally platted. Previous development included a negotiation for public use of green space in exchange for a reduction in park and trail fees. With this new development, the City is seeking a fifteen (15) foot trail easement on upland buildable land for a future trail connection in lieu of the standard park and trail dedication fees, as allowed by City Code. Funding Source: All costs associated with processing the Variance Application are the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer. Recommendation: The Planning Commission denied the requested Variance in part due to lack of information provided by the Developer. In order to address some of this concern, the Developer has provided a more detailed response. Additionally, the Planning Commission felt that the Developer could simply shift the site 20 feet to the east, or shrink the size of the building by 20 feet. Staff originally recommended approval of the Variance. When looking at this area on the macro -scale, and not at one individual project, the entire site is impacted by this change. Unlike the industrial development to the south, this site is impacted by an existing residential lot inset to the overall block. This residential site was originally recommended for rezoning to E-3 Employment consistent with the project site. At that time (over a year ago), the owner of the adjacent residential site requested additional time to explore impacts. To date, the City has not