05-22-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 2019 - 2 - this does not allow an expansion of the use. The Associate Planner stated that the purchase of this property by Mr. Holm would be considered a change in use. The Associate Planner explained that when the rezoning of this area occurred in 1988, the intention was to create a corridor along South Owasso Boulevard where industrial uses were still allowed, however the distinction between I-1 and I-P were that the I-P District would require higher quality site improvements and building materials, and a lesser area for outdoor storage was allowed. In 2005, the I-P District was amended to reduce the allowed outdoor storage ration even further and limit the location to rear yard only. The Associate Planner stated that Mr. Holm is seeking a variance to allow the outdoor storage as allowed in the I-1 District up to 60% of the lot area and to be located in the side yard. The Associate Planner explained that that text amendment portion of the request would be to create an Interim Use Permit in the I-P District that allows them to use outdoor storage before occupying the property. She stated that the applicant has indicated that construction would being within 36 months, but in the interim they would like to use the site for outdoor storage. She explained that Mr. Holm has provided two different site plans, and their future plans include construction of a 15,000 to 35,000 square foot office/warehouse building, plus an onsite waste water disposal component that would be within an accessory building. She stated that the amount of outdoor storage allowed will be dependent on the size of the building they construct. She noted that the applicant has indicated that the building materials would comply with the I-P building standards, but has not submitted any building elevations for review. She stated they have indicated that 84 parking spaces would be installed, but without specific plans, staff cannot determine whether that number is sufficient. The Associate Planner explained that the applicant is seeking a variance for the outdoor storage piece. She reviewed the difference in the amounts of outdoor storage allowed in the I-P District versus the I-1 District. She reported that after staff reviewed the practical difficulty of the variance request, it has been determined that it would not negatively impact the area, and the irregular shape and narrowness of the lot at the south end does impact the efficiencies of the site, and there is a buffer of the railroad tracks. She explained that the shape of the property and the larger size does not affect the site layout or design in this case. She explained that staff did not feel that the practical difficulty threshold was met for determining a practical difficulty exists and there are no adverse impacts preventing the applicant from complying with the I-P code requirements.