CC 06-14-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Page Two 14 June 1982 (It was noted that the existing Special Use Permit would be con- verted to the Planned Unit Development permit for duplex use of the proposed two lots, if approved; there would be no "common land"; desired landscape requirements can be written into the pun permi t) . Keith Tramm agreed to re-apply for a pun permit, as requested by Council. Case No. 82-10, Building Permit and Building Coverage Variance for Building Addition - Eastside Bevera~e Company Council was referred to transparency of the Eastside Beverage site, ~ 1260 Grey Fox Road, and to recommendations of Planning Commission and Board of Appeals. Miller explained that the total site coverage proposed is under the 75% maximum; building coverage is exceeded by about 5%, as proposed. Miller noted that the proposed building coverage variance does not create any visual or functional problems or otherwiae neg- atively impact the area; noted that the security problem is appar- ently the only "hardship" on the site. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals recommends approval of the Building Permit and variance based on non-existent visual impact and thp. only disruption created by granting a variance would be an arith.etic technicality. Miller reported that the Planning Commission did not concur with this recommendation. In discussion, concern was expressed relative to an existing 6'-8' wall which app~ara to be hazardous. It was noted thst this is a pre-existing condition; can be fenced or railed if necessary. Carol Basil, Assistant to Mr. Resha, Eastside BEverage, presented letters from surrounding property owners, all approving the pro- posed building addition; one stating it to be a "definite improve- mentlt . Mr. Hollenkamp presented an aerial photo of the area, showing Eastside Beverage property in relation to the surrounding building sites. In review of the proposal, it was noted that the addition would enable Eastside Beverage to park trucks inside for greater security; would also provide additional storage space so rail cars can be unloaded in less time, which reduces theft from the rail cars as well. It was noted that the site is unusually isolated in the area of the proposed addition - needs unusual protection. It was suggested that this unusually isolated site could be considered a "hardship" and a basis for granting the variance. After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council approve the building coverage variance and authorize issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed addition (Case No. 82-10) on the basis: ~ 1. It is an isolated site. 2. The building coverage variance will cause minimal visual impact on neighboring sites. 3. The total site coverage is less that the 75% maximum requirement. Motion carried (Hicks, Johnson, Mulcahy voting in favor of the motion; Woodburn and McAllister in opposition). Mulcahy said he feels that economic conditions can create a hardship and he is ready to consider this in appropriate situations. -2-