09-27-2000 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 Mr. Montour recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat for Country Side Terrace as requested by Mr. Dick Biagini subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner. VARIANCES — 2989 COUNTRY DRIVE — SUBURBAN AUTO Motion seconded by Carson. Motion carried 7 — 0. Mr. Dennis O'Connel, Suburban Auto, appeared before the Planning Commission requesting approval of a Variance from the side yard setback requirement of fifteen (15) feet so that he may put an addition onto his building which is five (5) feet from the lot line. O'Connel also requested a Variance from the materials requirements of the I -P District. This Variance would involve the expansion of a metal building as well as allowing the building to be surfaced in stucco. The Code limits the use of stucco in the I -P District to 25% of the building exterior. The City Planner pointed out that the I -P District allows for a one -time expansion of a metal building. He noted that Mr. O'Connel used that one- time expansion in 1994 when he added on to his building. The Planner noted that in order to grant a Variance, there must be a physical hardship present which limits the use of the property. The Planner felt it was difficult to find justification to grant a Variance from the building materials requirements even though the proposed addition would match the existing building. Knudsen asked the rationale for the one -time exclusion. The Planner replied that when the Code was changed putting into place the materials limitations, the City recognized the need for some building expansion. Therefore, it allowed a one -time expansion for the metal buildings in the I- P District. The Planner noted that an expansion of the Suburban Auto building can be allowed; however, the building materials used for the expansion must meet Code requirements. The Planner acknowledged that aesthetically the expansion might look odd given the use of different building materials. However, the Code does not take aesthetics into consideration. Keis asked about the five (5) foot setback for the existing building. The Planner indicated that the setback for the existing building is grandfathered in. The Planner noted that to require the building addition to meet the fifteen (15) foot setback requirement would cause the addition to close off an existing door. Page 31