10-11-07 Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Staff has discussed an alternative with the applicants. By adding to the existing principal building, rather than a detached accessory building, the applicants would not be restricted in square footage. However, the addition could only be reasonably constructed as an addition to the south wall. With this location, the applicant would need to relocate the outdoor storage area to the south corner of the property. This would require the applicant to meet the new 25% outdoor storage regulation, or get a variance to permit an outdoor storage area in excess of the 25% standard. Planning staff believes either of these variances are supportable. To consider a variance, the City must find that a hardship exists in putting the property to a reasonable use under the basic zoning regulations. The location of the outdoor storage area - a properly permitted but now non-conforming use -restricts the applicant from expanding the principal building and making a conforming use of the buildable area. For the alternative as proposed by the applicant, the City should find that a hardship is present that justifies an accessory building that is greater than the maximum 30% floor area. It should be noted that the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance would expand the accessory building floor area to 60% of the principal building size. Moreover, recent amendments to the state law governing non-conformities now provide that a city may condition the approval of a permit on the removal of anon-conforming condition. The existing outdoor storage area is such acondition - a use that was in conformance with the applicable regulations at the time of its approval, but which has since become out of conformance due to a change in the zoning regulations (specifically, the reduction in outdoor storage area from 75% to 25% of the principal building). The applicants also suggest that the location of the building and the shape of the property constrict the ability to circulate trucks on the site. It is not clear how this circumstance affects the potential building size directly, but size and shape of property are both mentioned as potential conditions that contribute to hardship. In the alternative, a variance to allow the relocation of the same amount of outdoor storage area on the site could be seen as a superior choice since the expansion of the principal building is preferred over larger accessory buildings generally. If this second alternative is chosen, the City should find that the expanded principal building is necessary to make reasonable use of the property, and that the location of the outdoor storage creates a hardship that justifies it's relocation to accommodate the larger principal building. In addition to the variance for accessory building size, the building has been designed with an open covered attached shed. The drawings provided by the applicant show that the accessory building roof would be extended to the north, support by posts by open to the air on three sides. In a meeting with the applicants, they had indicated that this portion of the building would actually be enclosed, although the plans do not indicate this. 2