HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3618-A Staff AnalysisMarch 28, 1994
No.. 1
File No
Owner
Address:
Description:
Zoned
Variance Requested:
:3ustification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Engineering Issues:
Z -3618-A
Synergised Properties, Inc.
5700 Asher Avenue
Long Legal
C-4
From the area provisions of Section
36-302(e) to permit a new building
with a reduced front yard setback.
The owner and tenant would like to
locate the new building as close as
possible to the existing facility.
This would require a 15 foot
setback from the property line in
lieu of 45 feet as zoned. This
would allow the tenant to retain
his existing exposure and
visibility along Asher and maintain
his customer base. The landlord
feels that setting a new building
30 feet further back than the
existing would conflict with
traffic patterns and other tenants
using this same parking lot. To
put the new building in a different
location, would be sacrificing the
current more desirous location.
Auto Repair and Commercial
Auto Repair and Commercial
1. Dedication of additional right-of-way for Asher Avenue
if the existing right-of-way is not 35 feet from the
centerline.
2. Minimum floor elevation certificate for building in the
floodplain.
3. The east side of the site is in the floodway and an
easement is needed for the established floodway area.
March 28, 1994
Itgm N 1(Cont.)
B. Staff Analysis:
The request for 5700 Asher Avenue involves the construction
of a new building and a setback variance. In the C-4
district, a 45 foot front yard setback is required, and the
proposal is to reduce the setback to 15 feet. The plan is
to remove an existing building and replace it with the
proposed structure, maintaining the same setback. The
building will continue to be used for automotive repair and
services. At this time, there are a total of five
structures and a paved parking area on the property.
Asher Avenue is a heavily traveled street, a principal
arterial, and C-4 is designed for such a roadway. The front
yard setback in C-4 is designed for streets that carry a
heavy traffic flow and to move vehicles through an area
without alot of inconvenience. Allowing a new building on
Asher Avenue to have a significant encroachment into the
front yard setback is questionable, and staff does not
support the requested variance.
Much of Asher was developed when no or only minimal setbacks
were required, which created a somewhat undesirable
development pattern. It is the staff's position that new
construction along Asher should conform to ordinance
standards and not continue the unacceptable practices of the
past. Redevelopment on Asher should be encouraged and every
effort should be made to satisfy all the requirements to
ensure a quality project. Setbacks along arterials are
important for efficient traffic movement and should be
adhered to whenever possible.
(If the variance is granted, the Board will also need to act
on having multiple buildings on single tract of land.
Basically, the Board will be asked to approve a multiple
building site plan review.)
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the setback variance for the
proposed building.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 28, 1994)
The Chairman asked that staff present its comments and
recommendation on this application. Richard Wood, of the staff,
offered a brief overview of the proposal, the several comments
from Public Works and the staff recommendation of denial of the
variance as presented.
2
March 28, 1994
Item No. 1(Cont-)
The Chairman then asked the applicant or a representative to come
forward and present their case. Mr. Randy Roberts was in
attendance representing Synergised Properties, Inc. Mr. Roberts
offered a brief commentary including the existing ownership
relationship on the properties, the several buildings in
existence, the status of the building to be replaced and its
usage. He presented copies of photographs of the existing
facility which is to be replaced. Mr. Roberts offered comments
related to the owners dedicating easements for utilities within
the 15 feet that he is proposing for building setback. Mr.
Roberts pointed out that his client felt that this is a good
location for the building, close to the street. It had been a
good location for his business and he would like to remain with
the new building as close as possible. He stated that his client
desired to leave the existing building in place until the new
structure is completed; otherwise, he would be out of business
for several months.
The design presented to the Board was identified as one that has
the least amount of adverse impact on the other properties and
use on this ownership. Following Mr. Roberts' comments, a board
member asked staff to comment on whether there was additional
right-of-way required for Asher Avenue at this point. It was
reported to the Board that the current right-of-way is sufficient
to handle the additional improvements that will be replaced along
the north side of Asher as identified on the applicant's drawing.
Staff pointed out from the drawing and dimensions on the
applicant's survey there will be between 20 to 22 feet of setback
from the back of the curb to the face of the building.
A board member then asked for clarification as to whether or not
the proposed building is going in place of the current structure.
Mr. Roberts's response was that the current building will remain
in place and that the new building will be constructed
approximately 5 feet or more immediately west running north and
south on the property. Mr. Roberts expanded on his comments to
say that the new orientation will work better for accessing the
premises for service and avoid backing or stacking traffic into
the main driveway of this business complex.
A board member then asked Mr. Roberts if he could not move the
building back at all. Mr. Roberts's response was that he felt
like setting the building back further would interfere with the
canopy over the walkways serving the larger building on the rear
of the lot. The question to Mr. Roberts was clarified to state
"could 25 feet total be provided as opposed to setting it back an
additional 25 feet." Mr. Roberts pointed out that in discussion
with the owner and operator of this business that he felt like
that there was room for compromise and they would do so. A
question was then posed again as to orientation of the building
3
March 28, 1994
Item No.: 1 (Cont.
and why they could not turn it. Mr. Roberts restated his
previous comment about circulation and avoiding car stacking in
the driveway to this site.
A board member then raised a question as to whether or not there
was a conflict in hours of operation or whether this is a daytime
use and the bowling alley is a nighttime use. Mr. Roberts
responded by stating that the bowling alley was no longer a
functioning business. There is a plasma business in that
structure and then did have evening operating hours that are
close to the operating hours or shutdown period for this
business.
The Chairman then asked the staff how it felt about requiring a
25 foot setback for this structure. Staff's response was that 25
feet would be generally in keeping with what has been provided by
recent construction along Asher Avenue, primarily on the south
side where businesses have provided from 25 to 40 feet.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone who had further
comments. The only comments forthcoming was from Stephen Giles,
of the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Giles pointed out that this
property when submitted for building permit would be requested to
dedicate a floodway easement along the east boundary, Coleman
Creek. Mr. Giles stated he felt like that dedication would
support the hardship circumstance and the Board should perhaps
give consideration to that.
The Chairman then asked if there was a motion on this request.
Prior to receiving a motion, Richard Wood, of the staff, reminded
the Chairman and the Board of a comment in the staff write-up.
This comment having to do with multiple buildings on a single
tract of land was simply a cleanup matter because there are
several businesses and several principal structures on the
property and this type of site requires a multiple building
variance from the Board of Adjustment.
The discussion then moved to a question of Mr. Roberts as to how
long he thought it would take to construct a new building and how
soon he would remove the current structure. A motion was then
made to approve the setback variance requiring a minimum of 25
feet of setback from the front property line and approval of the
exception from the ordinance to permit the multiple structures on
single lot with multiple uses. An additional requirement was
attached after a brief discussion of the removal period of the
existing building that the current structure be removed within 30
days following the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for
the new building.
A vote was then taken on the motion. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Hathaway), and 1 open
position.
4