Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shenandoah Mills seeks three variances for 30x30 utility shed; applicant says building replaces earlier structure
Summary
Shenandoah Mills applied for a 30‑by‑30 utility shed at 154 South College Street and requested variances for front/rear setbacks, principal pedestrian entrance orientation, and transparency for street‑facing facades. Applicant said the shed roughly replaces a demolished structure and is an accessory storage use.
Shenandoah Mills presented a request for a 30‑by‑30 accessory utility shed at 154 South College Street in a light industrial zoning district and asked the commission for three variances related to setback, pedestrian orientation, and facade transparency.
Planning staff summarized the requests: (1) a variance from the minimum front and rear building setback lines in the IL (light industrial) district, saying the lot’s size and shape create a limited buildable envelope under the IL setbacks; (2) a variance so that the principal pedestrian entrance would not face a street or open space because a ramp for storage access locates the door at a corner; and (3) a transparency variance for street‑facing facades to allow lower glazing on security grounds for an accessory storage building. Staff noted the transparency calculation must include the door on the street‑facing facade and that the resulting transparency may come close to the 20% requirement.
Representatives from Warren & Tuggle Civil Engineering explained the parcel’s history: an older structure at the same location was demolished between July 2019 and March 2020, and the applicant proposes to locate the accessory shed in essentially the same footprint, shifted slightly to accommodate recent stormwater improvements. Warren & Tuggle emphasized the building is intended for storage use and cited security concerns for limited glazing.
Cliff Carey, present to represent Shenandoah Mills, answered commissioner questions and the commission indicated no problem with moving the item forward for consideration. No final decision was recorded in the transcript; staff said additional plan corrections were needed and that the transparency calculation should include the door when determining compliance.
If granted, the variances would allow a small accessory storage building on the parcel despite IL setbacks and transparency requirements; staff recommended the commission consider the lot shape, use, and security needs when evaluating hardship and consistency with code.
