Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ----------- -------- <br /> . <br /> Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, May 6, 1987 <br /> Page 6 <br /> CASE NO. 87-12: Moved by Petersen, seconded by Zehm, that Commission <br /> (CONTINUED) recommends to Council approval of the 20 ft.Front . <br /> Setback Variance on the lot north of Lake Johanna <br /> Blvd. , Case No. 87-12, Mark Anderson: rationale for approval based on unique <br /> topography of the land (steep slope at the north and east portions of the lot). <br /> the fact that the adjacent properties will not be negatively impacted, and the <br /> southerly existing homes front setbacks are 10-15 ft. thus granting the <br /> variance would not establish setback precident. <br /> Thorn moved to amend the motion. seconded by Petersen, <br /> that approval be contingent upon the applicant satisfying all conditions <br /> attached to the approval of the minor subdivision. <br /> Amendment to the motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> Original motion as amended carried. (Petersen, Zehm, Malone, Thorn voting in <br /> favor; Babcook opposed) (4-1) <br /> CASE NO. 87-15; Planner reviewed his memorandum (4-29-87), regarding <br /> SITE PLAN REVIEW & the site plan review for Alpo Pet Food. Inc. and <br /> SETBACK VARIANCE ; rear yard setback. He noted that the Ordinance requires <br /> ALPO PET FOODS a 75 ft. setback from a residential zoning district for <br /> any non-residential structure. Since the rear property <br /> line of the subject property is the division between the I-I and R-l Districts. <br /> a 75 ft. rear setback is required in this case. Hiller advised that the Zoning <br /> Administrator had attempted to verify the zoning district boundary line, <br /> however, she was unable to find information relative to the vacation. . <br /> dedication or sale of the land that was proposed for use as Highway 51. The <br /> Planner stated he would discuss the matter with the City Attorney to determine <br /> the zoning district boundary line. Since this has not been verified, Miller <br /> suggested the Commission deal with the site plan review issue and include a <br /> contingency for the variance upon determination that it is necessary. <br /> Planner stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 17 ft. x 31 ft. <br /> addition to the northwest corner of the existing building. The proposed <br /> addition will be constructed of concrete block to match the present building <br /> and will be 21 ft. high. Miller advised that the project engineer has provided <br /> the following information regarding the construction and use of the proposed <br /> addition: <br /> - The building will house a tank for storage of liquid tallow. <br /> - Location for the addition was chosen to allow convenient service access <br /> and place the product storage near the place where it is needed in the <br /> manufacturing process. <br /> - The storage tank will be sealed and should not emit any additional odors. <br /> - The addition will not involve installation of mechanical equipment on the <br /> roof or adjacent to the building. <br /> - An air intake vent will be installed at the northwest corner. <br /> Commission members discussed the need for additional screening or plantings at <br /> the rear of the site and if parking is adequate. <br /> Miller advised that the site is well screened at the rear with mature or near . <br /> mature trees; he also stated that the parking is more than adequate. <br />