CCMIN091785 - Laserfiche WebLink

435 from downtown business people in support of his application. He advised that the building is used mainly for storage and that additional parking spaces will not be necessary. He proposed to use the parking space in lieu money to ~ upgrade and remodel the front and side of the building. He reviewed the pro- [_C) posed upgrading plans, stating it would enhance the downtown theme and be a ~. benefit to this area. ~ Council discussion ensued regarding storage area space. Mr. Finch stated ~ the storage space will be better than 2/3 of the addition. Mrs. Judy Mayhew, 610 Main Street, stated she felt it is far more impor- tant for the downtown to have attractive buildings than money in the bank for parking areas. She stated Mr. Finch's plan is gorgeous and that he does not need additional parking at this time. She stated she would not however oppose a condition stating that if the facade is not completed within a certain time frame that the parking fees would then have to be reinstated. She added that when more parking is needed other means may be found to pay for them. Mr. Jack Kolln, 1t9 Neal Street, stated his father built the subject building in 1930. He reviewed the various tenants that had occupied the building, stating that parking has never been a problem, and that 90% of the people do not even know there is a parking lot behind the building. He stated that Mr. Finch is a dependable businessman and his additional and upgrading will be an asset to the downtown area. Mr. Charles Huff, 4597 Shearwater Road, architect for the proposed addi- tion, stated that this is a good project and it is in accordance with the downtown guidelines. He reviewed the outside improvements. He stated this is a special situation, and that the improvements are appropriate. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal. There being no further testimony, Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed on this item. Councilmember Butler stated he did not feel the appropriate findings could be determined in accordance with the Ordinance. He suggested adding a condi- tion that required a certain amount of building area be used for storage. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Wood, that Resolution No. 85-450, after making the following findings: A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, includ- ing size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict applica- tion of the provision of this chapter would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under iden- tical zoning classification; B. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same zoning district; C. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or im- provements in the vicinity~ 14 - 9-17-85