2015.01.20 PC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ANALYSIS In order to accommodate the applicant’s proposed expansion, the Environmental Constraint Overlay Area (ECOA) Ordinance must be amended to ensure the expansion property is eligible for the benefits provided by the ECOA Ordinance (aggregate crushing/recycling and associated equipment storage). Additionally, to ensure the public is not negatively impacted by the proposed expansion, certain conditions within the ordinance must be amended. With the guidance of the City Attorney, staff has prepared the proposed code amendment on the applicant’s behalf (see attached ordinance). The main components and rationale of the code amendment and how those items relate to the expansion are as follows: Limits to the ECOA Ordinance This ordinance was originally written to accommodate the applicant’s existing 20 acre site. The expansion land doesn’t necessarily meet the original criteria established for inclusion in the Qverlay. Staff proposes to revise this section and refer to a map instead, leaving no interpretation of which properties are eligible for the Overlay. However, some of the original conditions remain intact as they are important to mitigate negative impacts to the general public and especially adjacent/nearby uses. Therefore, the proposed map and conditions will determine eligibility of the land use advantages of the ECOA. Regulating the Amount of Pile Storage Condition F of Section 6-800 is proposed to be amended relating to aggregate crushing, recycling, and equipment storage. The original ordinance was drafted for the applicant’s current operation. The amount of pile storage must be re-considered in light of inclusion of 17 additional acres into the overlay district. City staff is very concerned about keeping controls in place that limit how much material can be piled on the property, as this has a direct effect on negative impacts that might be felt by adjacent/nearby uses. Exterior storage (or pile storage) is only permitted as an accessory use and in this case a use accessory to the applicant’s excavation/construction business. Exterior storage as a principal use is not permitted under the Zoning Code. The applicant has requested to keep the current 30% storage standard in place, but allow credit to be given for areas not being used for storage. Staff is not supportive of this proposal. Staff has prepared a revised condition F, which is a 3-pronged approach to limiting pile storage: 1. The pile storage area must be specifically noted on a site plan and must only include areas that could accommodate piles. Thus, areas consumed by buildings, sound berms, parking areas, etc. must be subtracted from the overall land area of the site. In Belair’s case, staff has calculated that nearly 11 acres is unusable, leaving 26 acres for pile storage. 2. Within the pile storage area, only 30% may be used for piled material. The applicant was requested 30% of their acreage, or 11 acres. Based on an analysis of aerial photos, the applicant had 4 acres of pile storage in 2009 and 5.4 acres of pile storage in 2012. With staff’s proposal of 8 acres of pile storage (37-11 x 30%), the applicant will be able to grow their pile storage by 32.5%. From staff’s