07-13-06 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 2006 Knudsen noted that the issue before the Commission is whether or not a hardship exists that warrants the granting of a Variance to allow the outdoor storage in a side yard. Knudsen informed Kromroy thaC the City must consider the precedent that would be established in granting such a Variance. Therefore, the hardship should be as concrete and specific to Che property as possible. Barraclough again noted that the property abuts residentially-used property to the north and these property owners have a pool near this shared property line. Barraclough asked if consideration should be given to this fact, or if the property to the north should be viewed as vacant I-P property. The City Planner indicated that the pool or the fact that the adjacent property is being used as residential would not be considered a hardship or the basis for granting a variance. If the property were zoned Residential, that may be a factor of consideration. However, the adjacent property is zoned Industrial-Park. Hall asked if the adjacent properCy owner would have any recourse against the City if the outdoor storage area were located next to their property, i.e. visual nuisance. The Planner indicated that as long as the outdoor storage area is constructed in compliance with the City's Codes, he did not believe there would be any recourse. Duray asked if the applicant could pursue a text amendment which would allow outdoor storage in the side yard. The City Planner reported that an applicanC can always pursue a text amendment. However, he noted that the provision in the Code limiting outdoor storage to the rear yard in the I- PDistrict was just added to the Code about a year ago. This was in response Co the outdoor storage situation at the former Orius properCy on Spruce Street. Therefore, Che Planner felt iC was highly unlikely that Che provision would be eliminated. Hall asked the hisCOry of the ordinance that defines the narrow portion of the lot as front yard. Hall pointed out thaC the configuration of the building as well as the building address leads to the assumption that Yorkton Blvd. is the front of this property. The City Planner stated that this is typical of 95% of zoning ordinances. He indicated that basically when vacant property is platted, the front of a corner lot is considered to be the narrow side. This allows for the equal treatment of properties as they are being developed and allows for the applicaCion of codes and rules in a consistent manner.