04-14-11-Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a building within the required 15 foot side yard along the north boundary line of the property. The proposed building location with a 5 foot setback would place it approximately 20 feet from the building on the adjoining parcel which meets the 15 foot requirement. To locate the building as proposed, the applicant must receive approval of a setback variance. For variance consideration, the City must find that there is a unique condition on this particular property that creates a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use without the variance. For the sake of clarification, the State Supreme Court's ruling on variances last year confirms this standard, which is the one that the City has used traditionally, and which is identified in its zoning regulations. The applicant makes a number of arguments in support of his request. These are summarized below: • Xcel Energy has a 50 foot wide easement covering the south 50 feet (about one half) of the parcel that prohibits any building (although the applicant is seeking an encroachment into that easement of 15 feet from the utility). ® There is a 60 foot water utility easement covering the west (rear) portion of the property that decreases the effective usable rear yard area which would otherwise have a 20 foot rear setback requirement. e The applicant suggests that larger, wider buildings attract better tenants, and consequently, less opportunity for outdoor storage. • The applicant suggests that by shifting the building to the north, there is a more effective turning radius for vehicles that would enter tenant bay doors on the south side of the building. The current parcel is approximately 100 feet in width. Under typical 1 -1 standards with 15 foot side yard setbacks, the buildable width of the lot would normally be 70 feet. Due to the Xcel easement and the normal 15 foot setback, (even if an encroachment is permitted), the maximum building width would be 50 feet, and less than that if no easement encroachment is granted. Under the current regulations (without variance), and given the Xcel easement, just 35 feet of buildable width would be available on this parcel. The question would be whether this would constitute reasonable use of the property. The applicant suggests that while a building of this width can be constructed, it yields an unreasonable result — a building that houses only less- desirable businesses that overly rely on outdoor storage for their operations. The applicant has suggested that this is one of the contributing factors to some of the long- standing issues in the industrial park. As such, the variance analysis would require that the City finds that a building which meets the required setbacks on this parcel, and which is reduced by the existence of the Xcel easement (and perhaps the waterworks easement) does not rise to reasonable use of the property. Therefore, a hardship exists that would support the approval of a variance.