My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-22-2000 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
03-22-2000 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2012 11:03:05 AM
Creation date
6/27/2012 10:54:31 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
176
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
MINUIES <br />PLANNING CONIVi IISSION <br />JANUARY 13, 2000 <br />Rossow expressed concern about school bus access to the home <br />and the fact that a handicapped - accessible school bus will tie up <br />traffic on Little Canada Road for a minimum of 4 minutes when <br />dropping off clients who utilize wheelchairs. It was pointed out <br />that the building will front the parking lot at the corner of Little <br />Canada Road and McMenemy Road and the school bus could <br />utilize the parking lot. <br />David Collova reported that he owns the adjacent property and <br />asked how much traffic would be utilizing the lower parking lot. <br />Schmidt reported that there will be 5 employees in the office <br />during normal daytime business hours. She also reported that the <br />clients using the respite home usually are dropped off during the <br />daytime hours. A drop -off takes approximately 15 minutes and <br />will likely occur from the upper parking lot. <br />Keis noted that the crux of the issue is the variance and again <br />suggested that the Commission give the applicant an indication on <br />the variance. However, he felt the matter needed to be tabled so <br />that the City Engineer can work with the applicant on the ponding <br />issue. <br />Duray felt there was no hardship present to justify the variance. <br />Knudsen asked if there was any non - financial basis for a variance. <br />The City Planner replied that the Commission would have to find a <br />special condition that is unique to the property and that creates a <br />hardship with putting the property to a reasonable use. The <br />Planner suggested that the narrowness of the property may be a <br />special condition. <br />Knudsen suggested that the narrowness of the lot as well as the <br />need to comply with ADA regulations would create a unique <br />situation for this development. Therefore, he was willing to <br />support a variance. <br />Montour noted that the 15 -foot setback is not being met on one <br />corner of the building. Montour suggested that the need for a <br />storm water holding pond may effect the entire layout of the <br />property. <br />Barraclough felt that the use proposed was a good use of the <br />property; and felt that given the Federal funding of the project, the <br />property will be well maintained. <br />Page 55 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.