2006.11.06 RESO 2006-0062 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Resolution 2006-62 Page 2 c) The proposed use would be consistent with the character of this General Business District. d) Staff does not foresee any problems with utilities or drainage. e) The proposed use will be in an existing building that has adequate access onto Highway 61. f) The proposed use would not be located within the floodplain. g) The proposed use would not obstruct the floodplain or increase the potential for flooding. h) The proposed use would not damage or reduce the benefits from any public waters. 1) The proposed use would not involve the use of watercraft. j) The proposed use would not be visible from any public waters. k) The proposed use would not impact any wetlands. 1) The applicant will be responsible for obtaining all state and local permits. m) The existing building is compatible with the adjacent buildings. The proposed meat processing use will be adequately screened from adjacent residential uses and public right-of-ways. The screening will consist of 6 foot high wood fencing. 8. A variance is approved to allow for 15 parking spaces instead of the required 26 spaces with the following findings: a) The requested variance on the property is from the dimensional requirements of the ordinance and is permissible by law. b) The hardship is unique to the property because the property currently is developed with an existing building that has 8 parking spaces. Denial of the variance would result in more area of the site to be impervious surface that could affect drainage of stormwater on the site. C) The sprit and intent of the parking regulations in the ordinance is to ensure that adequate parking is in place for the intended use. Stafrs opinion is that the proposed parking spaces are more than adequate for the intended use. The variance on the property will be keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.