Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 14, 1994 <br />was a hardship in complying due to the soil conditions <br />of the property. <br />Keis suggested that if soil conditions show that <br />masonry can be supported, then the City should require <br />compliance with the masonry requirement. Keis <br />suggested that at the time the property is excavated, <br />the Building Inspector verify the soil conditions. <br />The City Planner suggested that Mr. Stockness' engineer <br />report on soil conditions at the time of excavation, <br />with the City Engineer reviewing and verifying that <br />report. The Planner asked Mr. Stockness when he would <br />like to begin construction of his building. <br />Stockness replied that he would like to begin as soon <br />as possible. <br />Garske pointed out that the building proposed by Mr. <br />Stockness is clearly better than those in Ryan <br />Industrial Park, and Mr. Stockness has been a <br />responsible property owner within the park. Garske <br />stated that the only question that he has is one of <br />fairness, pointing out that Mr. DeBace has been <br />required to comply with the masonry requirement of the <br />I -P District. Garske pointed out that soil conditions <br />can be corrected, and suggested that the sale price of <br />the property may reflect the soil conditions. <br />Stockness reported that the property was competitively <br />priced with others in the area. <br />Mr. Keis recommended approval of the Variance from the <br />building materials requirement of 50% masonry coverage <br />for the I -P District subject to a report from Mr. <br />Stockness' engineer at the time of excavation <br />indicating that masonry construction could not be <br />supported due to soil conditions, those findings to be <br />verified by the City Engineer, and should that report <br />indicate that masonry can be supported, Mr. Stockness <br />would be required to install masonry 4 feet high around <br />the entire building, and further indicating that the <br />variance would be justified since the property is <br />unique in that it is located adjacent to an existing, <br />developed I -1 District and is, therefore, a <br />transitional site. <br />Motion seconded by Keis. <br />5 <br />Page 14 <br />