05-22-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

 The granting of the variance would provide the applicant with a special privilege that is thereby denied by ordinance.  The variance is created by the applicant and their need for additional outdoor storage space that is strictly prohibited by code. As another consideration, city staff is seeking Planning Commission input on whether or not a more comprehensive review should be conducted on the overall allowance of outdoor storage. Further study that staff may suggest would be allowed uses and accessory uses in all of our Industrial Districts (i.e. I- P, I-1, and I-2). This review may be more applicable for those properties along the South Owasso and Country Drive corridors where we have the highest concentration of industrial properties, but there are others along Centerville Road too that further discussion may be warranted to distinguish differences in uses and industrial industry needs within these zoning districts. City staff does not have any specific language at this time that we’d be proposing, but one suggestion would be the language in the I-P District for outdoor storage. Consideration could be given to possibly modifying the two factors for determining allowed outdoor storage area be reverse of the existing language (i.e. says “whichever is less” to “whichever is greater”). City staff is not looking for specific code modifications you’d be suggesting, but rather just an indication to is this something that planning staff should undertake for review. Another note when reviewing this application is that the City had in 2001 and 2004 a variance request for additional outdoor storage from the Property Owner of 50 S. Owasso Blvd. This property is zoned I-P and has a similar shape just smaller and has the Waterworks Trail to the west so also had a natural buffer. However, both of those requests were denied. City staff believes a review would at a minimum afford us an opportunity to take a comprehensive look at our code and the guiding standards we envision for this area versus reviewing properties on an individual basis. However, if the Planning Commission feels the requested action is a reasonable use for this site and meets the intent of the I-P District as proposed for redevelopment then the following findings of fact could be used in support of said approval:  The narrowness and irregular shape of the site are contributing factors not created by the land owner which lend to inefficiencies in maximization of lot as described in the I-P District.  The redeveloped intended use of the site is designed to meet the intent of the I-P District and by granting the variance for additional outdoor storage up to X% of lot area and located in the side yard behind the front line of building this is considered a reasonable use of the parcel given the first finding with lot irregularities. (Please note: This condition could include a percentage of outdoor storage that the Planning Commission determines to be reasonable and you are not required to grant the full amount the applicant is seeking - i.e. 30%, 40% or the 60% as requested.)  The natural buffer of the railroad tracks along the west edge of the parcel creates a buffer of screening beyond the code requirements and provides further assurance that there will be no negative impacts on the properties to the west by the proposed use. Interim Use Permit The 2nd part of the request by the Applicant is for a text amendment that would create a provision in the I-P District for an Interim Use Permit to allow an accessory use (i.e. outdoor storage) with no principal use. Upon purchase, the applicant is proposing to begin using the outdoor storage area (up to the 60%) while not occupy the property. During this time, the outdoor storage would also continue to be utilized by Mr. Erdmanis, Property Owner. The ratio of outdoor storage area will be dependent on