05-22-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and recommend such conditions related to the variance regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed building, structure or use as it may deem advisable in the interest of the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. Through discussions with Mr. Holm’s the basis for the City’s consideration in granting the variance request is due to the irregular shape of site. In review of the factors outlined in C.1, city staff does not find that the proposed action will negatively impact conditions A-E. In conditions C.2.A through E, these factors define the practical difficulties threshold that must be met for granting a variance. State statute specifically sets forth that “practical difficulties” for granting a variance must meet the following standards:  The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance,  The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and  The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The statute further reads that economic considerations alone shall not constitute practical difficulties and a variance shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with intent of ordinance and consistent with comprehensive plan. City staff does agree that the site has an irregular shape and narrowness on the south end that is unique to this parcel for which was not created by the landowner. This shape of site results in inefficiencies for a standard layout that typical industrial park users may require in order for redevelopment of the property to occur. The railroad grade to the west is also a unique condition of this site. This could be taken advantage of and utilized to support the proposed variance given it provides a natural screening for the properties to the west (Note: the properties to the west are commercially zoned and the addition of screening is not a requirement in the rear or side yard.) Lastly in support of the proposed, city staff does find that outdoor storage is a reasonable use in this district and on this parcel. All of these are considerations when determining a “finding of fact” for granting a variance. In review of the site plan, the applicant has submitted two options that we believe demonstrate optimal configurations for building layout, site flow, off-street parking and outdoor storage area. The applicant is proposing an accessory use that is allowed by ordinance. However, they are seeking to be afforded a right of which other properties in this district may not be allowed based on the factors as stated above. Staff finds that the irregular shape of the site in this case does not appear to have been an impediment to site layout or design in this application. Whereas, the site size of 4.2 acres with the narrowness of the southern half are more of a contributing factor for the landowner or buyer to seek additional outdoor storage due to having available area. City staff finds that the granting of a variance under these conditions would provide a special privilege to the applicant by allowing the increased outdoor storage area. As a result, city staff does not believe the threshold has been met for determining a practical difficulty exists and that there are no adverse impacts preventing the applicant from meeting I-P code requirements. Therefore, city staff is recommending denial of the variance request for increased outdoor storage area and outdoor storage to be located in the side yard based on the following findings:  The applicant has not demonstrated how the irregular shape of the site has contributed to loss of rights as allowed for in the I-P District.