HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5956 Staff AnalysisMay 22, 1995
Com! Yelm
File No.;
Owner:
Address-
nescriotion:
zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Proper :
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. EngzneerinaIssues:
Z-5956
Doyle W. Rogers
6815 Asher Avenue
Lot 1, Section "A", Finch Addition
C-3
From the area regulations of
Section 36-301 to permit
construction of a new retail
building with a reduced rear yard
setback of 4 feet. The ordinance
requires a rear yard setback of 25
feet in the C-3 district.
Due to the limited size of the lot,
it has little commercial value
without the ability to fully
utilize the site. In addition, the
lot sits at the edge of the 100
year flood plain which will require
that the elevation of the property
be raised, further limiting the
available buildable area.
Vacant
New, 7,000 square foot, retail
building
A grading permit and a development permit will be required.
This property is in the 100 year floodplain. Revise site
plan to have only one driveway per City ordinance. Dedicate
right-of-way on Asher Avenue to 45 feet from centerline and
construct Master Street Plan required improvements. Widen
Asher Avenue to 33 feet from centerline and construct
sidewalk.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant proposes to construct a 7,000 square foot
retail building on this vacant, C-3 zoned site. In order to
fully utilize the site and to provide the amount of parking
May '22, 1995
Item No.: A (Cont.
needed by the proposed tenant, the building has been pushed
toward the rear property line. The applicant is requesting
a rear yard setback of 4 feet. The ordinance requires a
rear yard setback of 25 feet in the C-3 district.
The subject property backs up to a larger, C-4 zoned tract.
This C-4 zoned property was formerly occupied by a plant
sales business and the remnants of -several greenhouses are
located on the property.
The applicant's property is relatively small to begin with,
160 feet wide by 150 foot deep, and this will be further
reduced by the loss of an additional 15 feet for the Asher
Avenue right-of-way.
Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable and supports
the requested rear yard setback variance. The reduced
setback should have no effect on the adjacent property.
The site plan submitted with this application will need to
be refined to address those concerns raised by the City
Engineer. Once the additional right-of-way is dedicated and
the required areas are set aside for landscaping,
approximately 12 of the proposed 35 parking spaces will be
lost. A 7,000 square foot retail, commercial building
requires 23 on-site parking spaces.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rear yard setback
variance subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Comments
2. Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer
Ordinances
A revised site plan incorporating the required changes must
be submitted to staff.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (FEBRUARY 27, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff advised the Board that the applicant had requested a
deferral to the March 27, 1995 Board meeting. To comply with the
requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way, the site plan
had to be redrawn. The prospective tenant has not had an
opportunity to review the revised site plan.
A motion was made to defer the item to the March 27, 1995 Board
meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to work with the
proposed tenant on the revised site plan. The vote was 8 ayes,
0 noes, 0 absent and 1 open position.
2
May 22, 1995
Item N A n
BOARD (MARCH 27, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff advised the Board that the applicant had requested that the
item be deferred to the April 24, 1995 Board meeting. The
applicant is still working with a prospective tenant on the
revised site plan as well as meeting with the owner of adjacent
property which may be available to be added to this site. It was
pointed out to the Board that this would be the applicant's
second and final deferral.
A motion was made to defer the item to the April 24, 1995 Board
meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to work with the
proposed tenant as well as the owner of the adjacent property.
The vote was 9 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant was requesting
another deferral. The applicant stated that he was still working
with the owner of adjacent property in hopes of acquiring that
property and adding it to this site. In response to a question
from the Board, staff noted that the site was vacant and that a
deferral would not have any impact on the adjoining neighborhood.
A motion was made to grant a deferral to the May 22, 1995 Board
meeting. The motion included the provision that this was to be
the final deferral of this item. The motion was approved with a
vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 22, 1995)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had submitted a
letter requesting that the item be withdrawn.
A motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion was approved
by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3