Agenda - Council - 09/10/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Chair Randy Bauer stated that in full transparency he is a neighboring property owner that received notification of the request. He stated that when he received the notification, he believed it to be a reasonable request. He stated that during the public hearing the applicant spoke and two members of the public. He noted that one resident spoke about the necessity to follow an ordinance as variations can set precedent for future requests. He stated that the other property owner was a commercial developer that had requested a similar variance and had to stick with the required setback. He reviewed the ordinance and variance language and noted that the applicant provided an economic reason for wanting the variance. Councilmember Riley asked staff for additional information on whether this request would qualify for a variance. Community Development Director Gladhill stated that it would come down to the physical conditions, noting that this is a unique shaped lot with stormwater pond locations. He stated that there are unique situations in this request that may not apply in other requests. Councilmember Heinrich asked for information on the maneuverability mentioned in the staff report. Community Development Director Gladhill stated that the maneuverability of trucks was mentioned in the staff report and explained how large trucks would access and flow through the site to the loading dock area. He explained that if 20 feet were lost it would be difficult or impossible to make the move into the loading dock area. Councilmember Kuzma stated that it appears that more information has been shared tonight compared to the Planning Commission review and therefore would suggest that this be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review. Mayor LeTourneau stated that perhaps the representative from the business come forward to provide input. Dan Schleck, attorney representing the applicant, stated that he has worked in zoning and land use issues for the past 20 years and previously worked as a City Attorney for another community. He stated that there has been a lot of discussion and case law surrounding the ability of cities to grant variances. He stated that in 2011 the legislature changed the undue hardship test to the current practical difficulties test that exists in ordinances now. He noted that he was not at the Planning Commission meeting and was caught off guard with the comments made. He advised that staff recommend approval of the variance at that meeting and still recommends approval tonight. He stated that there are three prongs that recommend when a variance should be granted. He noted that a decision regarding a variance does not create precedent, as every piece of property is unique and must come forward on its own merit. He stated that this site does have practical difficulties associated with development, noting that previous zoning decisions in respect to the property to the west is a practical difficulty. He stated that stormwater ponding, access and curb cuts have already been established and because the design is not the previously proposed use of the site, that also creates practical difficulty. He noted that there are also topographical issues associated with the property between the property and Bunker Lake City Council / July 23, 2019 Page 7 of 10