CCP 05-11-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The variance condition could be avoided by moving the addition south along the west wall of the existing building. If located . near the southwest corner of the existing building, service could be accommodated from the south parking and service area. This location, however, is at the opposite end of the building from where the product is used in the manufacturing process and would require 200 feet of piping to deliver the product to the mixing platform, Since the tallow must be heated to remain liquid, the delivery pipes would also have to be heated. Therefore, the applicant has chosen the proposed location for efficiency and economy. 3. It should be noted that a 50-foot-wide public pedestrian way exists between the subject property line and the rear of the closest single-family lots. This condition effectively creates a 113-foot separation between the proposed addition and the adjacent lots. The ordinance, however, establishes the setback from the zoning district line, which is the same as the subject property line. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed addition is relatively minor and will not significantly alter the present use of the site. 2, The rationale for the requested setback variance relates to the location and configuration of the existing structure, not specifically to a hardship caused by the characteristics of the land. However, . the additional separation provided by the 50-foot pedestrian way mitigates the setback encroachment. 3. If the Planning Commission favors the variance, the justification would have to be that the pedestrian way creates a unique condition of this lot which mitigates any negative effects of the encroachment upon adjacent properties. 4. The applicant should be reminded that the ordinance states that no service activity audible in. a residential district shall occur between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Section VI,E(4)) . mOo CASE #87-15 PAGE TWO