My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-23-2007 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
05-23-2007 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2011 11:15:10 AM
Creation date
11/8/2011 11:06:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
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
Planning Commission -page 2 <br />the building and invested a significant amount in leasehold improvements and have no <br />intention of leaving anytime in the foreseeable future. I have my oldest son involved in <br />the business whom will be here long after I'm gone. The existing parking spaces will <br />exceed our needs forever. If in the unlikely event I did ever sell the building, the gazebo <br />would go with me, freeing back up some of those lost parking spaces. As far as staff's <br />recommendation to remove the existing building to build a larger one, why would I want <br />to incur unneeded expense to tear down a perfectly good building that currently matches <br />our existing building an spend additional money replacing that square footage. I am a <br />small business. <br />A reference is made about my request not being consistent with the goals of the district. <br />While I don't know what the goals are, as a taxpayer in the district, I would think having <br />a reputable, operating, consumer friendly business located in an nice, well kept building <br />that employs many hard working people, all of whom pay taxes would be a nice goal. <br />While my property is zoned PUD, all you have to do is drive from one end of County <br />Drive to the other end and you find a large variety of buildings and businesses that I'm <br />sure are more inconsistent with the purpose and aesthetic objectives of the district then <br />my proposed improvements would be . I have enclosed pictures of all of my neighbors <br />on Country Drive and I think our property and the requested buildings would all be a <br />significant compliment and in many cases an improvement over what is currently around <br />us. <br />Driving north on Country Drive off Little Canada Road. <br />1. Office building with an unsightly air conditioning unit in the front of the building. <br />2. Residential home. <br />3. Residential home. <br />4. Garden (may some day be developed) <br />5. Office building and warehouse with a perennial "for lease" sign. <br />6. Our property with newly painted building. <br />7. Office building with two garages. <br />8. Office building with one garage and an ugly temporary sign that's been there <br />forever. <br />9. Apartment building with a perennial "apartment available" sign on the curb. <br />10. Suburban Auto Body - retail sales <br />11. Premier Lighting - retail sales <br />12. Trans Auto Transmissions - retail sales <br />13. Archery Range — retail sales <br />14. North Star mobile home Park. <br />15. Warehouse with boats and camper trailer storage. <br />16. Fra -Dor Landscape Supply with numerous products displayed outdoors - retail <br />sales <br />17. Little Canada Municipal Garage (across street) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.