Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />March 12, 2003 <br />Page 4 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />2. Perimeter and interior landscaping will sh all be provided in conformance with the <br />MarketPlace PDO requirements. Islands located in the parking lot shall be <br />landscaped and of sufficient widt h to accommodate the vegetation. <br />3. The plans shall be modified to the reduc e the impervious surface to 75% or less. <br />4. The modifications and comments as set fo rth in the City Engineer’s memo, dated <br />March 6, 2003, shall be incor porated into the plans. <br />5. The ordering Kiosk, in the drive-through lane shall be relo cated westerly to <br />accommodate additional stacking. <br />6. The drive-through exit shall be extended to the south to route existing traffic through <br />the jparking lot more uniformly. <br />7. The sidewalk area shall be modified to pr ovide separation between the parking stalls. <br />8. The applicant shall enter into a Site Performance Agreement with the City. <br />The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4-0. <br />D.Michael McGough, 153 Parkview Drive, Variance <br />Staff explained the applicant was requesting a variance to construct an addition onto his <br />home. The proposed one-story addition woul d extend 10 feet into the required 30-foot <br />rear yard setback. Staff reviewed th eir March 12, 2003 report summarizing the five <br />findings for a variance. Staff stated they were recommending denial of the variance <br />request due to there being no unique circum stances or conditions on the property which <br />were creating a hardship situation. <br />Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. <br />Mike McGough, 153 Parkview Drive, stated he had lived in his home since 1994. He <br />stated he liked the neighborhood and he di d not want to do something him or his <br />neighbors did not like and theref ore, he did not want to tu rn the addition sideways. He <br />noted he believed he did have a hardship with the layout of the property. He stated this <br />was the best way he could arch itecturally add the addition. He stated if he tilted the <br />addition 90 degrees, he would have a big lean to shed out the back of his house. He <br />indicated his neighbors had no obj ection to the addition as proposed. <br />Chair Schaps asked if there was a patio in existence. Mr. McGough replied there was. <br />He noted he would landscape all of the way around the addition. He noted he had a <br />corner lot and because of that, he had thr ee 30 feet setbacks, which was also, in his <br />opinion, a hardship. <br />Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend denial of the variance re quest due to there <br />being no unique circumstances or conditi ons on the property which were creating a <br />hardship situation. The motion was suppor ted by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0.