My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020.11.17 Planning Commission
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Planning
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2020
>
2020.11.17 Planning Commission
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2021 10:57:36 AM
Creation date
2/18/2021 10:45:21 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Site Plan & Nonconforming Use Variance Review – Jamatar II LLC and Everest Properties LLC <br />Planning Commission Report; 11-17-20 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Page 11 <br />(cont.) Rather than require these landowners go through a variance process every time <br />changes need to be made to the internal parking configureation, staff believes it is far <br />more efficient to recognize that as long as these buildings and lots lines exist in their <br />current configuration, standard parking setbacks should be waived. <br /> <br />Parking <br />Location <br />Variance <br />Analysis: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />General Variance Standards <br />1) Is the location of existing and proposed parking in harmony with the general <br />purpose and intent of the Zoning Code? <br />Staff Analysis: Development of the subject sites resulting in the current <br />configuration of buildings and parking began prior to adoption of the City’s <br />current zoning code. Given an undeveloped site, the City’s various standards for <br />parking, setbacks, and green space have been shown to create desireable <br />development. The applicant’s properties are far from a blank slate with many <br />legal nonconformities. Accordingly, we must recognize that not all standard <br />zoning goals can be achieved, and that some standards will likely need to give <br />way to others to achive the City’s broader goals. Parking up to and over interal <br />lot lines on these sites achieves the broader goal of meeting the parking needs of <br />our busiensses with no downside (internal buffers in this context do nothing to <br />improve aesthetics, or protect the health, safety, or welfare of the community. <br />Criteria met. <br />2) Is the existing and proposed location of parking consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan? <br />Staff Analysis: The comp plan sets broad policy goals for the City which include <br />directives to develop and support a thriving commercial and industrial landscape <br />for our business owners. Honoring and allowing for zero lot line parking setbacks <br />in this setting, given historical approvals, is necessary for the success of the area <br />until such time as one or more of the buildings is removed or until lot lines are <br />shifted. Criteria conditionally met. <br />3) Has the applicant established that practical difficulties exist on the site? <br />a. Does the applicant propose to use the property in a reasonable manner <br />not permitted by the zoning ordinance? <br />Staff Analysis: Wanting to rearrange parking easements which are <br />prohibiting the growth and utilization of our existing businesses is a <br />reasonable request. Wanting to arrange internal parking in a manner that <br />would not meet internal side yard setbacks is also reasonable given this set of <br />facts. It would not be reasonbale to request parking changes that prohibited <br />emergency vehicle access. Criteria conditionally met.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.