7/10/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the Plan is not to create non-conformites and, therefore, any lawfully conforming use existing at the time of Plan adoption would be considered consistent with the Plan, the staff determined that the M-1 zoning of the site was valid and that the site could be expanded. Besides the zoning and land use questions, another issue identi- fied in the appeal letter involves concern over the possible use of toxic chemicals by the on-site furniture manufacturer. Mr. Hiers has stated that the existing facility manufactures only seat cushions, and that there are no chemicals involved. The 7,500 square foot warehouse will be an expansion of the existing business, and no toxic chemicals will be brought on site as a result. Buildings or structures holding or containing liquid or material having an explosive capability are allowed in the M-1 zoning district; however, a 30 foot side yard setback must be maintained when explosive materials are to be stored on a site. The approved plan depicts a 30 foot side yard setback. Another issue cited in the appeal is the front yard setback, and what Mr. Fleckenstein determines to be its replacement with a parking area. The existing United Irrigation building is located within an area that would normally have been required to be dedicated to the County as right-of-way; however, because of the location of an existing structure within this area, the land was designated only as a "road reservation", and additional structures, i.e. parking spaces, were permitted within the area. The new parking spaces are located 10 feet from the property line, the required front yard setback. The final issue raised in the appeal is the adequacy of the parking. According to the County's parking ordinance, section 24 of the zoning code, warehouses are required to provide only 1 parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area, not one space per 200 square feet as stated by Mr. Fleckenstein in his appeal letter. The site plan depicts the 15 new spaces required by the proposed warehouse, as well as the modification of the existing parking to bring the site into conformance with current County parking regulations. It is the staff's position -.that all of the issues raised in the appeal letter were addressed by the staff in its review of the initial site plan submittal and "subsequently addressed by the applicant in submission of_..a revised site plan. The staff feels that the applicant has complied with all applicable County regulations and agreed to additional improvements to mitigate or resolve potential problems identified by the staff. ,Based upon those factors, the staff feels that the Planning and Zoning Commission made the correct decision in approving Bobby Hiers's site plan application. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board deny the appeal of Mr. Fleckenstein and affirm the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission in approving the subject site plan. 55 JUL 10 1985 RooK 61 F,H 467