CC MINUTES 10251983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r -3- Motion by Councilman Marks.: and.. seconded by Councilman Letourneau to • follow- the recommendation of .the. Planning Commission to grant a five foot front setback variance to the City Ordinance requirement for 35 feet on the east; a six foot setback variance for the west side, where 15 feet are required by Ordinance; and- to permit six less than the required 29 .parking spaces for that property for the expansion of Donatelle.. Tool, -Inc. . 3824 Foss Road, as proposed with site plans (Exhibit S-1) presented by the proponents , Michael and Charles Donatelle,. finding that: Cl) Granting. the five foot frontyard setback variance .for a 30 foot setback along Foss . Road would bring the .proposed addition into alignment with.. the adjacent building .to the south which has the same five foot variance, and . constructing, the building to match that variance would be aesthetically pleasing and should not interfere with traffic since setbacks of this .nature have already been established for that neighborhood. (2) The unique triangular shape of . both the subject and the adjacent parcel to the west provides for- long distances between the sub- ject proposed building and the adjacent structure; between any proposed adjacent building'. and .that proposed subject building; and to .the Chandler Drive -right-of-way which runs at an angle to this sideyard .area, which would seem to justify granting the requested nine foot sideyar.d variance to the City requirement for 15 foot .sidevard setbacks for the addition. • (31 In permitting 23 parking stalls , . where 29 -are. required by . Ordinance for the property, the Council recognizes the subject site .is partially triangular in shape and there is plenty of landscaped ..area provided on the site-, especially in the front yard, where- the plantings could be removed to provide six future parking. stalls , if required, and thereby meet the City Ordinance requirements . (4) The City Comprehensive -.Plan acknowledges the conflict of land use in that district and the proposal would partially eliminate that conflict by removing a single family residence which is surrounded on three sides by industrial. (5) The adjacent property ownertestified at the October 17th Com- mission hearing that he had no problem with, and actually likes , the -proposal and there was no opposition to the variance requests voiced either during that hearing or during the Council considera- tion. (6) The proponents had ,indicated they would anticipate no excess use of or. strain upon existing utility service with this expansion and there is no history of complaints related to noise or pollution for the existing facility. C7) The three conditions set for granting these variances were found • .to be in the affirmative.