Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6005 Staff AnalysisJuly 31, 1995 File No. Owner: Address: Description- zoned: variance Reavuested: Justification: Present use of_Property: Proposed Use of Provert : Staff Re ort: A. En ineerin Issues: Z-6005 CRRO, Inc./Ralph Olsen, Applicant 10120 Colonel Glenn Road Part of the NE 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 22, T -1-N, R -13-W I-2 A variance is requested from the paving requirements of Section 36- 508 to permit use of an unpaved driveway and parking lot. The applicant proposes to construct a storage building on the rear portion of this tract. The proposed driveway and parking lot will only be used by employees to access this storage building. The public will not have access to this area of the property. Two vacant buildings and partially paved parking area. The rear of the site is being cleared in preparation for the proposed construction. Landscape contractor's office and storage Gravel will not allow the proposed parking lot to be used as designed, as gravel cannot be striped. The parking lot needs to be increased in size due to the irregular parking which occurs in gravel parking lots. Gravel parking is not recommended due to the safety hazard of loose rock being carried onto the road surfaces. B. Staff An 1 sis: Horticare Landscape Management Company, a landscape design, construction and maintenance company, proposes to occupy this I-2 zoned site. There are two existing buildings and a July 31, 1995 Item o.: B (Cant.) small paved parking lot currently on the property. The applicant proposes to construct a 9,000 square foot building on the rear portion of the site. The building will be used to store vehicles, trailers and equipment. A circular driveway and a 19'space employee parking lot are proposed to be constructed to access this new storage building and one of the existing buildings. It is the applicant's contention that the public will not have access to these two buildings or the employee parking lot. As such, it is the applicant's desire not to have to pave the proposed new driveway and parking lot. The driveway and parking lot are to be constructed of 6" compacted shale subgrade and 4" compacted SB -2. The applicant proposes to heavily landscape the site to reflect the nature of his business. The property is located in an area of mixed zoning and uses including several existing industrial uses. Many of these existing industrial properties were developed prior to being annexed into the City and, as such do not fully comply with all city site development standards. However, directly adjacent to the north of this site, the initial phase of a new office/warehouse development has been completed. This office/warehouse development was submitted to Planning Commission site plan review and is to be constructed in compliance with code standards including paved parking, proper landscaping and buffers. Staff believes it is in the best interest of the City to obtain code compliance whenever new development is proposed. As such, staff cannot support a complete waiver of the paving requirement for the proposed new driveway and parking lot. Staff can support a deferral of the paving requirement for a period of three years, after which the driveway and parking lot should be properly paved. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of a requirement for the proposed Staff recommends approval of paving requirement instead. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: waiver of the paving driveway and parking lot. a three year deferral of the (JUNE 26, 1995) The applicant, Ralph Olsen, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial of the requested paving waiver. Staff recommended approval of a 3 year deferral of the paving requirement instead. 2 July 31, 1995 Item No.: B (Con Mr. Olsen addressed the Board in support of the variance. He stated that the driveway extension and parking lot would only be used by employees. He, also stated that he did not have funds to pave the driveway and parking lot. Mr. Olsen concluded by stating that the asphalt would be destroyed by loading equipment used in his business. In response to a statement by Chairman Terry, Mr. Olsen stated that there was approximately 100 feet of paved driveway between the proposed gravel driveways and the street, thus reducing the possibility of tracking gravel out onto Colonel Glenn Road. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, reminded the Board that there were some questions that needed answered about the notification procedure used by Mr. Olsen prior to further discussion of the item. Mr. Carney informed the Board that Mr. Olsen did not obtain a list of nearby property owners as certified by an abstract company. Notices were not sent via certified mail as required. Mr. Olsen presented signatures of 4 individuals but there was no indication of what they signed or which properties they represented. Mr. Olsen stated that he carried the notice form around to his neighbors who signed the affidavit at the bottom. He returned only the signatures to the Planning Staff. Chairman Terry stated that the list from the abstract company should be provided. John Borchert echoed Chairman Terry's sentiments. John Borchert and Mr. Olsen then discussed the possibility of paving the driveway and leaving the work area unpaved. A motion was made to defer the application to the July 31, 1995 Board hearing to allow the applicant an opportunity to properly notify nearby property owners. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 31, 1995) Reed Parkerson was present representing the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the proper notification procedure had been followed. Mr. Parkerson addressed the Board in support of the paving waiver. He explained some aspects of the proposed landscaping business and how the use of heavy trucks and equipment could destroy any asphalt pavement. Mr. Parkerson stated that the area in question would not be accessible to the general public. John Borchert asked if the applicant would agree to pave the driveways on either side of the existing building. Mr. Parkerson 3 July 31, 1995 Item No.;- B (Cont ) -- responded that they were concerned about heavy trucks tearing up the driveways. Chairman Terry stated that a three year deferral of the paving requirement seemed reasonable to him. He advised Mr. Parkerson that the applicant could either pave the driveways and parking lot after the three year period or come back to the Board. A motion was made to approve a three year deferral of the paving requirement. The vote was 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 4