10-24-1990 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 1990 indicated that he has not looked at the site specifically to identify any violations. Costa asked for an explanation of the 30% limitation. The City Planner explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows accessory buildings up to 30% of the principle building size, therefore, limiting cold storage areas and encouraging more investment in the property. The Planner sited the Fuel Economy request for a variance to exceed this limitation, which was denied by the Council since Fuel Economy had room to add to their principle structure which would the have required that the building be sprinkled. The Council also looked at an ordinance amendment to increase the 30% limitation, however, decided the amendment was not appropriate since it may provide a way for property owners wishing to expand their businesses not to have to sprinkle. Pedersen asked if Mr. Carle's intention was to use the building even if he had to bring it into conformance. Carle replied that that was his intention. Carle pointed out that none of his neighbors are objecting to his request. There was no one from the general public present wishing to comment on this matter. Pederson pointed out that there must be a hardship present in order to grant a variance. Bendel asked if the variance could be granted in exchange for special landscaping, for example. Bendel stated that he realized that there was a precedent issue. The Planner stated that his concern would be consistency and how the City would treat another applicant requesting a similar variance. Pederson recommended denial of the Groundskeeper request for a variance to the Code for building size which exceeds the 30% accessory building size limitation based on the fact that there is no hardship present. Motion seconded by Drabik. Motion carried 7 - 0. Page 7