PL PACKET 11191996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 1996 Page 2 1 Market building that is part of his property and reconstruct a 4,000 square foot building in the 2 same footprint to house servicetrepair bays so that he may expand his service station business. 3 Currently, the meat market building is approximately 10 feet into the side yard setback,which for 4 commercial properties adjacent to residential areas, is 10 feet shy of the required side yard setback 5 of 20 feet (1635.05, Subd. 7). 6 Also, because the building is in the setback,by definition of the City Ordinance(Section 1660), 7 this is a non-conforming structure. As such the Ordinance requires the discontinuance of a non-. 8 conforming structure should there be a change to that structure. 9 Mr. Bona is proposing to reconstruct a building that will be more to his needs for his service and 10 repair business. He investigated the option of renovating the old Johnson Meat Market,but trying 11 to bring the building up to the current building code requirements was more expensive than 12 tearing down the existing building and reconstructing a more usable facility. 13 He has considered several other options,but he feels this one is more cost effective and less 14 disruptive. He was concerned that if the building became an addition to the existing service 15 station, it would restrict traffic flow and void the parking variances he had already secured. 16 -Mr.Bona applied for and received approval in June for a conditional use permit for the expansion 17 of the building and parking variances. Mr.Bona will not require additional consideration for 18 parking with this proposal. 19 Ms.Moore-Sykes noted a memorandum which addressed the issue that this proposal was 20 different from what was being proposed at the time the public hearing notice went to the paper. 21 Mr. Bona is proposing to demolish the meat market rather than renovate it. Upon consultation 22 with the City Attorney, he asked if anyone had called about the proposal, one way or another. To 23 date, no one has called. City Attorney advised that since no one has called, it may not be an issue 24 but if residents show up at the meeting tonight, it could be. He also suggested that Ms. Moore- 25 Sykes call Mr. Bona and inform him of the problem with the notice and let him make the decision 26 to proceed or wait. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated she had done so and Mr. Bona stated he wanted to. 27 go on with the public hearing as no one from the neighborhood will object to the new plans. 28 In discussing the public notice, City Attorney also brought up the fact that this is not a rear yard 29 issue, but really a side yard issue according to the definition of a front yard in the Ordinance. He 30 was also concerned that the City is considering allowing a non-conforming structure to be 31 replaced. 32 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated Staff is recommending approval of the 10 foot variance. Mr. 33' Bona has stated that this proposal allows him to continue to use his property to its best 34 use. It will not be detrimental to surrounding properties and will contyribute to the 35 redevelopment efforts of the City.