PL MINUTES 06171986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- • 1 further to the west to provide a greater spread between the pump island which 2 would allow four rather than two vehicles to be serviced at the same time . 3 4 The applicant said the canopy would be seven feet from the property line but 5 actually 19 feet from the road because the county has a 9 foot right-of-way in 6 that location. Mr. Childs confirmed that moving the pumps laterally would leave 7 them 26 feet from the curbl-ine, and he said there would still be more than 8 adequate side yard setbacks retained on both sides after the move. The Manager 9 also said even though the station is a commercial use for which the ordinance 10 only requires 30 foot setbacks, it is because it is located in an industrial 11 district that 40 foot front yard setbacks are required. 12 13 Commissioner Madden noted that Mr. Childs had drawn a comparison -between this 14 proposal and the situation -when the Amoco station was rebuilt on Silver Lake Road 15 and the Commissioner indicated he thought the City had granted Amoco a 10 foot 16 front yard setback variance for their canopy but had refused to grant a five foot 17 setback variance for the pumps to be moved closer to the street. The minutes of 18 the meeting where the Council acted on the Amoco request revealed that only a 19 variance for a canopy had been granted. 20 21 Mr. Graff told Commissioner Jones he perceived a four foot slab of cement in 22 front of the station office might cause a traffic problem in that area if the 23 pumps were moved closer to the building as the Commissioner had suggested. The 24 Manager indicated there might be a building code problem with moving a detached 25 canopy closer to the station building . . 26 • 27 Commissioner Bowerman raised the question of whether by relocating the pumps, the 28 owner could be perceived to .have totally changed the -character of the existing 29 installation, thereby invalidating its protection as a non-conforming use which 30 had been "grandfathered in" when the Zoning Ordinance was written. Mr. Childs 31 indicated he perceived it might be up to the Commission to interpret whether the 32 change was substantial enough to require a variance but a legal opinion on the 33 point might also be required since he was not sure himself. 34 35 Commissioner Madden said he perceived that if the pumps were moved, that action 36 would constitute a change. great enough to require a variance and he suggested the 37 matter be tabled for another month to allow Mr. Graff time enough to sit down with 38 staff to try to work out a proposal which would be more palatable to the Com- 39 missioners and which would not be so close to the -road. The Commissioner indi- 40 cated he perceived there might be a line of sight problem created for drivers 41 coming westward and turning north on Highway 88. Commissioner Bowerman said from j42 his own experience of driving that way, he perceived having the canopy closer 43 might provide better lighting for that dark corner. ' 44 45 ' Mr. Graff indicated it would not be a problem for him to have the project delayed 46 another month but he said he just didn't know where he could move the canopy. 47 He sai.d there had been no major accidents on that corner as far as he knew and 48 he indicated that he perceived that if'-the Commissioners looked at the picture 49• -which was similar to how his property would look after the changes were made, I 50 they could not help but agree that there would be a big improvement and the 51- -station would now be an asset to the community. I 52 - 53 253 Commissioner Jones responded by telling Mr. Graff that the Commission might be 54 facing a procedural problem because., if the City Attorney indicates a second 55 variance would be required for the pumps, which the Commissioner said he expected