My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-13-2004 Planning Comm. Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
05-13-2004 Planning Comm. Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2008 10:06:54 AM
Creation date
7/16/2008 9:24:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
121
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
t~()'T€~V`11~~'~ A,55Ca£N,~T~3 C4R75L"f,~hl7'S, 6C. <br />577Fi V'~Ja~yzata BoiilGvard, Suite 555, St. Louis Bark, iv1N ',i ~i~d1 ~3 <br />7eIeE;~hone: 957.595.96.36 Farsirnilc: 952.5~75.yS37 ~aar3nf:rs(:~?rcacplannir~g.corn <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Little Canada Planning Commission <br />FROM: Stephen Grittman <br />DATE: November 13, 2003 <br />RE: Little Canada -Valor Enterprises CUP Amendment <br />FILE N0: 758.09 - 03. <br />The Planning Commission tabled action on this request at the October meeting to <br />permit adequate time for the City Engineer to investigate drainage in the area. The <br />request is, essentially, to relocate the sales lot from the back area of the site to the front, <br />reduce the parking requirement, and increase the number of vehicles allowed in the <br />outdoor storage area. The applicants had indicated that flooding on the site was <br />keeping them from putting the site to use as had been planned. <br />The Engineer's report is attached to the Planning Commission's agenda packet. In that <br />report, the Engineer indicates that flooding on the site could be controlled by some <br />grading changes to the lot. Because the applicant had not paved the sales area as <br />originally required by the CUP approval, there would appear to be an opportunity to <br />regrade the site without compromising too much of the existing investment. <br />As a result, planning staff does not recommend approval of the amendment. The <br />parking requirement, as stated in the original staff report, is 30 spaces. Even though <br />this applicant may not need this number, it would be imprudent to reduce the parking <br />and allow an over-development of the site, considering that a future user may have <br />need for more. The City has a clause in its zoning ordinance that permits "proof of <br />parking" in which future parking area may be "saved" as landscaped area until it is <br />shown that additional parking is necessary. <br />With regard to the storage area, it would appear that if arranged as an angled parking <br />lot, four rows of storage could be provided with one-way drive aisles serving them. This <br />would permit a total of about 12 cars per row, or a maximum storage capacity of about <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.