Agenda - Council - 03/12/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

7) 8) 9) lO) By separate letters dated Febzxmry 16, 1979 the E.Q.B. and D.N.R. both approved the variance request as well as the proposed develop- ment. 1lie Board of Adjustment received written letters in opposition to the variance and development from: Roger and ~knrlys Dickenson, dated January 8, 1979 Merle L. Anderson, dated January 9, 1979 Ruth Gustafson, dated January 10, 1979 Priscilla O'Rourke, dated Jan~t~ry 1, 1979 Roger and Mirmie Dickenson, dated January 19, 1979 The Citqf's Police Chief submitted a memo to the City Administrator concerning the parking and blocking issues dated Jann~ry 27, 1979. At the conclusion of the public hearing on February 26, 1979, the Board of Adjustment directed the staff to prepare findings of fact toward denial of the requested variance. B. FINDINGS OF FACT That the proposed construction requires a variance from Section. 170.013A(4) of the City Code (code requires 60' kride side yard setback, variance request is for a 20' wide side yard setback). 2) 'Ihat the proposed construction requires a variance from Section 170.013D(2) of the City Code (Code requires a 35' wide rear yard setback variance request is for a 25' wide rear yard setback). 3) That the subject property is located in the City's B-1 Business District and the proposed use conforms with the B-1 permitted use of '~olesale Business" 4) That the plans submitted by the applicant provide adequate parking space pursuant to the City's code, 5) rIhat the variance requests if granted would permit a building to be built on the site which will could add to the already critical surface water drMnage problem in the inrnediate neighbor- hood. 6) That the variance requests if granted would permit a building to be built on the site which would generate additional large truck traffic adding to the existing traffic safety and inconvenience problems on Tungsten Street, Rivlyn Avenue and Front Street. 7) That the construction of Tungsten as it presently exists is not adequate to handle additional large truck traffic. 8) The lot in question was of record at the time the City's existhig zoning ordinance was adopted and, therefore, does conform to the City's lot size requirements,