My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-13-1978 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1975-1979
>
1978
>
12-13-1978 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2013 2:33:33 PM
Creation date
4/8/2013 2:30:41 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
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
c. The parking which extends into the front yard can be screened by <br />proper landscaping without obstructing view of the building. <br />It should be emphasized that we are not trying to design the applicant's <br />site plan for him. Rather, the sketch attached simply shows one method of <br />dealing with some of the design problems which we have identified. <br />3. Variance to the required front yard setback. Due to the existing location <br />of the adjacent shopping center on the west side and the adjacent residences <br />on the east, the applicant has asked for a variance of 10 feet from the <br />40 foot front yard setback requirement. While it is not unusual to grant <br />variances based upon setbacks of buildings on adjacent properties, certain <br />factors should first be considered. <br />a. The buildings to the east are residential but zoned B -2, General <br />Business. The City must consider that those properties may very <br />well develop as commercial uses in the future. As such, granting <br />of this variance request is viewed as encouraging the substandard <br />setback. <br />b. If the building were resited somewhat, the angle of view to the <br />west would be increased. In addition, elimination of parking <br />toward the front of the property increases the visibility of the <br />building. <br />c. While it is not feasible to move the buildings west of the site to <br />conform with setback requirements, an existing wood fence between <br />the two properties could be moved back to allow more visibility to <br />the subject site. A memo has been sent to the City Building <br />Inspector requesting him to examine this fence for possible ordinance <br />violation. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />In view of the preceding analysis, it is felt that a variance to either the parking <br />or setback requirements of the Little Canada Zoning Ordinance is not necessary. <br />In addition, it is felt that a site plan could be designed which is sensitive to the <br />existing trees and green space and still comply with City code. <br />cc: <br />Joe Chlebeck <br />Don Valento <br />Don Carley <br />Clayton Parks <br />Larry Squires <br />Dr. Mark Holmes <br />File No. (758.09) <br />case no. (78.05) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.