Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Wash Setback topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission denies variance request for Express Parkway Business Park
Summary
The commission voted to deny a developer's variance request that would have allowed buildings and large retaining walls inside wash buffers; staff recommended denial and suggested a development agreement if the applicant still pursued two buildings.
The Eagle Mountain Planning Commission voted on May 26 to deny a variance request for the Express Parkway Business Park that would have allowed permanent structures and extensive earthwork within a mapped wash buffer, along with a taller-than-code retaining wall and a circulation exception for a drive-through.
Steven, the staff presenter, outlined three variance requests: allow permanent structures within 50 feet of the top of bank (or 75 feet from centerline if greater), permit earthwork within that buffer, and authorize a retaining wall up to 11 feet tall rather than the 6-foot limit in code. He told commissioners that while the lot could be reconfigured, staff found there was still reasonable buildable area to support a single building without the requested variances: "The reason we're recommending denial on this is because staff feels that that lot...there's probably enough of a buildable area to still build one building, but yes, you can't build two," Steven said.
Commission discussion focused on wash-protection objectives, wall height and public-interest impacts. Commissioner Allen said the proposal risked setting a harmful precedent and noted the visual and environmental impacts of large retaining walls near Smith Ranch Park: "If you're over at the park...a massive retaining wall, that's just gonna kill the vibe over there," he said. Commissioners also highlighted that neighboring lots were developed with one building and that the requested exceptions would be unique to this parcel.
Commissioner Corsi moved to deny the variance based on the staff findings; Commissioner Strong seconded. The motion carried in a voice vote and the variance request was denied. Staff had suggested a development agreement as an alternative path for the applicant if they still seek two buildings, but commissioners signaled the variance route did not meet the five required approval criteria.
