PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for Site Plan Review and Variance to the Front Yard Setback on the Property Located at 6815 McKinley Street NW; Case of Sharp & Associates, LLC

The applicant is proposing an 11,659 square foot addition to the south elevation of an existing building located at 6815 McKinley Street NW.  The addition will accommodate warehousing needs for Cullinan Rigging, which currently operates on this site.  The addition meets all required setbacks except for the thirty-five (35) foot front yard setback. The southwest corner of the proposed building addition would be twenty-two (22) feet from the front property line.  Only a small portion of the building addition would encroach on the required setback. The applicant is requesting a thirteen (13) foot front yard setback variance for this southwest corner to accommodate the addition.

All property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property were notified of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. A Notice of Public Hearing was also published in the official newspaper.

The property is a corner lot and abuts both Ebony Street to the east and McKinley Street to the south.  The building addition is to the south portion of the building, which is the front elevation facing McKinley Street NW. The main building entry at the southeast corner will remain as is. The exterior finish of the proposed addition will match the exterior building materials, colors, windows and accenting band on the building's existing southern elevation. Staff is supportive of the proposed building elevation.

The proposed building addition will require twelve (12) parking stalls. The original site plan provided twenty-eight (28) stalls with an additional thirty (30) stalls shown as proof of parking in the northwest corner of the site. These stalls would not be initially installed but available in the event additional parking is needed. With the proof of parking stalls the site meets the required fifty-eight (58) parking stalls with the building addition.  Staff is supportive of the proof of parking plan.

The proposed addition will require the relocation of an existing storm sewer line.  The proposed relocation of this line, as well as the storm water pond calculations, have been reviewed and are acceptable.

Recent statute changes renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.”

In evaluating this variance request under the new law, findings must be adopted that address the following questions:

Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? The proposed use is an existing permitted use in the E-2 Employment District. The addition will accommodate expansion of permitted warehousing use. A variance is necessary to accommodate that warehouse expansion as it is thirteen (13) feet too close to the front yard setback (at its closest point, the entire addition is not out of compliance). The site is triangular in nature, making full use of the site for proposed addition challenging. The rear of the site narrows such that an addition in this location would not be able to accommodate truck vehicles and the required turning radius. For the reason of the shape of the site, a variance is reasonable and as a permitted use would be in harmony with the purpose of the ordinance.

Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Yes, the zoning and land use are consistent.

Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Yes, the site configuration causes a hardship and therefore the variance to the front setback for the southwest corner provides reasonable use of the property.

Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Yes, the shape of the site offers challenges to create an addition while also maintaining truck access and turning movements.

Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? No. The use is an industrial use and is consistent with the other uses in the immediate area.

Alternative #1:  Approve the requested variance and proposed setback.  The requested deviation from the front yard setback appears to meet the three (3) factor test necessary to approve a variance.  The irregular shape of the lot creates the difficulty in accomplishing the building expansion, which is needed for a growing business.  Across McKinley Street from this business is the BNSF railroad right-of-way, thus, there will not be any future development across from this property and to the west is property that the City owns (presently leasing back to business) and thus is not likely to develop in the future either.  Staff is supportive of both the variance and site plan.

Alternative #2:  Deny the variance.  Without the variance, a building expansion to accommodate the larger equipment and trucks would not be possible on this site.  

As a reminder, the Planning Commission will be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity with regard to the variance request and will be providing the City Council a recommendation related to the site plan.

All costs associated with processing of the Application are the responsibility of the Applicant.

Staff recommends approval of the requested variance and the proposed site plan.

Motion #1:

Motion to adopt Resolution #13-06-100 approving Findings of Fact #0913.

-AND- 

Motion #2:

Motion to adopt Resolution #13-06-101 approving the Variance to Front Yard Setback.

Motion #3:

Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Site Plan contingent upon compliance with the Staff Report dated May 31, 2013.