CC 08-11-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Keating P e.ge th ree August II, 1980 noted there ia an iasue of non-conformancy here which was not dealt with by the Planning Commission; noted that Council should determine whether the storage tank i8 merely a matter of operation or an enlarge- ment of the non-conforming use. Wingert said it does not represent an expansion of the use; ssme number of buses, only a chsnge in fuel; expressed concern that the tank is also a re--fueling tank which will be the source of noise, smoke, odor during refueling; said he feels it is unfortunate to locate the tank adjacent to residential area when it could be located on the west side, away from reaidential. It was noted that deteils on dyking are needed from the City Engineer. . . After discuasion, Wingert moved, seconded by Crepeau, that Council approve iaauance of a Special Use Permit for one SOO-gallon above- ground diesel fnel tank contingent upon: 1. Location of tank in northwest portion of the site, and .2. Approval by the City Engineer and peA of Buitable design for dyking, and 3. Review at the end of one year to determine if it conatitutes a significant problem andlor is objected to by neighbors. In further discuss10~, Crichton said he concurs with placement of the tank to the northwest, but does not agree that this is not an en~argement of a non-couforming use; interprets ordinsnce intent is to discourage operation of non-conforming uses, not contribute to or assist in the continued non-conforming use of the site; consequently, Conncil should not allow this tank. Hanson asked the applicant if Columbia Transit can rely on commercial stations to refuel the buaes, if the application is denied. Bouthilet aaid be did not fsal the converaion would be feasible if fueled in this manner; fuel savinga are needed, ao tank on the premiaea ia the beat aolution to our atudy. Woodburn asked where the tank would be located on the northwest por- tion of the property. Bouthilet said there are aoma treea in this location, a low marsh area and 80me underbruah; noted that tank would be painted green. Kotion carried (Wingert, Crepeau, Woodburn voting in favor of the motion; Crichton, Hanaon voting in opposition). Caee No. 80-24, Variance for Garage - Thomas Carroll, 3131 North Lexington Council waa referred to ~ianner's report of 7/30/80 and recommendations from Board of Appeala (8-6-80) and Planning Commission (8-6-80). In review, Miller noted that the County will remove the existing small house on the northwest corner of Lexington snd County Road D and re- grade the lot as indicated on the County Engineer's plan; plan also indicates that a retaining wall will be constructed along a portion of the Lexington Avenue r.o.w. line. . Killer referred to the Applicant's proposal (Exhibit 1) which i8 to construct a new garage with access to County Road D; noted that a driveway to County Road D provides a safer approach hut is concerned that garags, as proposed to be located, may constitute B visual encroach- ment 8 feet from the r.o.v. line, reported that the County Engineer does not apparently have thia concern. Killer noted that tbe garage vill be obvious, at leaat, from the roadway. Killer reported that it is nut certain whather the County will aell the lot or grant an eaaement to e~e Carrolla for the drivevay; if lot is Dot in their ownership, the "lternate proposal (Exhibit 2) ia not poaaible; noted that the alt~rnate proposal increaaea the garage aetback from Lexingtoo to about 20 faet, but does not provide the shelter from aouDd of Lexington Avenue traffic that applicancs desire and expect to achieve with their proposal. -3-