01-10-1979 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Little Canada Planning Commission 2 January 1979 Page Two 2. Parking. The site plan shows a redesigned parking lot which conforms to ordinance requirements and provides approximately 27 parking spaces. As shown in Exhibit B, the parking is actually reduced by three spaces, resulting in a total of 24 spaces. The number of parking spaces originally calculated for the proposed building was 23 spaces. 3. Front Yard Setback. The new site plan shows a 40 foot setback from the Little Canada Road right -of -way. The building should be shown 40 feet from the County Road C right -of -way. 4. Existing Garage - Lot 6. The applicant has stated that the existing garage on Lot 7 which encroaches onto Lot 6 may create a problem as far as financing is concerned and that the owner has agreed to move it if necessary. From a planning perspective, the garage does not appear to present a problem. However, it should be noted that the garage would become a non - conforming structure and be subject to ordinance provisions for non - conforming structures. If destroyed, it could not be replaced in its present location. 5. Existing Fence - Tom Thumb Property. In the 6 December staff report, it was mentioned that the existing redwood fence on the Tom Thumb property was located very close to the street and serves to block the view of the applicant's property from the street. Upon field checking the property in question, it was discovered that the fence (which is a screen for the Tom Thumb dumpster) has been partially destroyed by fire and that half of the fence is leaning against a chain link fence which divides the two properties. The location of the dumpster, the condition of the fence and the refuse scattered about the dumpster are viewed as inappropriate for the frontage of Little Canada Road. It does not seem unreasonable for the City to consider requiring the owners of the Torn Thumb property to move the dumpster back on the property and to rebuild the screen fence. This would not create a hardship for the property owner as there is adequate room on his property and would actually move the dumpster closer to the rear service door. An additional factor of a safety hazard justifies such action. This issue is not for the applicant to resolve, but does have an adverse impact on his site. RECOMMENDATION While the new site plan has been greatly improved over the original, some problems are still evident. However, it is felt that the Planning Commission can now make a recommendation with some reservations. It is suggested that the applicant's request be recommended for approval by the City Council contingent upon the following: 1. Upon presenting the proposal to the City Council, the site plan be shown on the actual survey with correct dimensions.