PL MINUTES 01191982 (02) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

< -3- direct alignment. with that structure , producing a more aesthetically pleasing appearance and will .not aggravate any existing condition-, • and, moreover, utilizing more of the property can .be a benefit to the community because of increased tax base and employment. The Commis- sion further finds that there will be sufficient open space on the site because of the unusual triangular shape of the northern portion, and granting this variance cannot .be perceived as increasing the value . of the property since the siting for the existing structure predates the current City ordinance and a hardship for the owner would be created if the variance were not granted. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Jones to recommend Council approval of a variance for four parking spaces to the City ordinance requirement of one parking space for every 350 square feet of floor area which will permit -47 parking -spaces in an area where 51 are required as per Exhibit A, finding that granting this variance will alleviate a hardship caused by the triangular shape of the site which makes provision of adequate parking difficult and the existing building siting predates the current zoning ordinance requirements and prohibits optimum development of the parking lot layout. The Commission also notes the need for additional parking may be affected by the fact that the company is car pooling and rising energy costs may increase the use of mass transportation. In recommending approval of the variance , the Commission suggests the owners should be required to screen by fencing, berm, or other devices , all storage of materials on the site. Before .a vote was taken, the following amendment was moved: Motion by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Peterson to strike the references in the motion to the effect- the variance which predates the existing ordinance has on the parking abilities for the site , not wishing to set a precedent for using this as a condition for granting similar variances in the future. Voting on the amendment: Aye: Bowerman, Peterson, Jones and Sopcinski . Nay : Bjorklund and Makowske. Motion to amend carried. Voting on the amended motion: Aye:. Bjorklund, Peterson and Bowerman. Nay : Makowske, Sopcinski , and Jones . Motion failed to pass. Mr. Jones then attempted to rewrite the motion to indicate to the Council that the Commission approves of the requested variance for four parking spaces for Central Engineering because they foresee no