Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables school building variances at 1214 Cherry Avenue, asks for site plan and applicant representation
Summary
Commissioners tabled two variance requests for a proposed school building at 1214 Cherry Avenue — a requested increase in lot coverage to 77% and a reduced front-yard setback to 8 feet — citing lack of site plans and absence of an applicant representative.
The Goodland Planning Commission voted to table two variance requests for a proposed school building at 1214 Cherry Avenue after commissioners said they lacked a detailed site plan and an applicant representative to answer questions.
Kent, presenting staff materials, said the school district is requesting that the combined area of principal and accessory structures cover 77% of the lot instead of the 50% currently allowed under R‑1 zoning and that the front yard setback be reduced from 20 feet to 8 feet measured from the property line. Kent identified the site as Goodland Block 20, Lots 7 and 12 (partial Lot 6) and said the request was submitted on behalf of the district.
Commissioners questioned whether the site is sufficiently unique to meet variance standards and whether a public/civic building should be permitted to exceed residential zoning rules. Commissioner Curtis Penrod said he did not see uniqueness in the lot and noted the applicants had combined several lots to create a larger parcel. Chair Matt McKenzie said the commission needed more information to visualize how the proposed footprint would sit on the lot and how it would affect neighboring houses.
"So I move that we table the variance request, until we can gather more information from the applicant in regards to their site plan and, have a member present at the meeting to ask questions," McKenzie said. The motion, moved by McKenzie and seconded by Dennis Steven, passed by voice vote. Commissioners later moved and passed a second motion to table the front-yard setback request as well.
Kent told the commission he would ask the applicant to provide a detailed site plan and a representative for the next meeting. No formal findings on hardship, public interest or minimum-variance criteria were made before tabling. The item will be placed on a future agenda when additional documentation is submitted.
The commission also discussed as a separate question whether rezoning to a public or quasi-public district might be more appropriate than variances for a civic use in an R‑1 district. Commissioners agreed that staff should return with clearer site documentation before the planning commission makes a recommendation.
