3A - Variance to Exceed 25 Percent Impervious Surface Cover in the Commercial District

Home Browse Search

COMMUNITY*GROWTH j� Gly of 1 N S T I T U T E Pow Experis to Small 7rown Planning t des'-' Staff Findings: Staff provides the following findings of fact for consideration by the Board of Adjustment: 1. The strict interpretation of the Ordinance would not be impractical. There is nothing about the parcel that would require an increase in impervious coverage. The reality is that,with the parcel size submitted,the level of development can be scaled back or additional property acquired. 2. A deviation,with conditions would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. The impervious coverage standard is designed to address stormwater and green space/spacing issues. While improvements to engineering standards can address stormwater concerns, a deviation would reduce the green space and spacing in a way that would be inconsistent with the intent of the Code. 3. The proposed retail use is a conditional use in the Commercial Zoning District. 4. The variance will alter the character of the neighborhood. The neighboring properties appear to be compliant with the current standard. By being out of compliance the property is not only inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood but establishes a poor precedent for the adjacent property, which has a high redevelopment potential and will likely be in the same position when it does redevelop. 5. A variance for impervious coverage would be for economic considerations alone. The property can support a less intense development approach,but the developer has indicated that the store size is needed for economic reasons. The ordinance does not deny reasonable use of the property. Rather, the proposed use does not fit with the configuration of the property. Board of Adjustment Direction: The Board of Adjustment can approve, deny, or table this variance. Staff Recommendation:We find absolutely no justification for a variance.There is no hardship that is unique to this property or caused by the land. This is simply a matter of trying to do more with the property than what is allowed. We recommend the variance be denied. Additionally, if the developer is truly proceeding with a new application that would not require a variance yet refuses to withdraw the application, then we recommend that the Planning Commission deny the variance for the fact that it is not needed. The updated submittals and tight time schedule have not allowed us to control the mandated timeframes for review as we normally would. As such, we have passed the time period when we can reject an application as incomplete (or unnecessary) so we are committed to acting within 6o days. If this variance is not needed,we recommend it be cleared from the docket. Finally, if the Planning Commission wishes to approve the variance, we would recommend, as an alternative, a review of the impervious coverage standard. Acting arbitrarily to approve a variance without a hardship is not consistent with how Pequot Lakes normally does business and would be inconsistent with past rulings we have made on similar properties. If we are going to throw out these provisions in this instance, we should review the underlying merits of the standard and, if necessary, modify them for all property owners. Pequot Lakes Staff Report 3(a)-2 November 5,2009