LP-094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . .. . LP-94, NC-42 Page #3 At the time the application for the non-conformi~g use permit was reviewed by the Planning Commission; the applicant did not propose paving the entire front yard. The revised site plan for Council consideration denotes that those areas not landscaped will be paved. Staff contends that it would not be practical to require that the entire front yard be landscaped because of the existing overhead doors. The-proposed landscaping areas appear adequate and will contain the type of plantings that will screen the front yard parking. The paving of the front yard will not only provide dust control but will add to the appearance of the site. The outside storage areas should be in orderly rows and not include any debris, refuse or parts. A11 vehicles on the site shall be operable and currently licensed. In summary, the applicant's site and landscape plans meet the intentions of the non-conforming use permit by reducing the impact and the extent of the existing Type IV non-conformities. In regard to the building plans, they are complete and contain all the necessary information. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION EXTRACT OF MINUTES BOARD OF REVIEW REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1979 The applicant, Bob Griffis, was present to answer any questions. He stated that because of the cost and type of machinery used by the firm it was not practical to pave the entire front yard of the site. ' Commissioner Baker noted that front yard parking is not permitted and if parking was allpwed in the front yard, the area should look like a parking area. Commissioner Livingston asked the estimated cost of the paving and commented this cost is small in respect to the cost of the building. Chairman Schmidt inquired how many cars are presently parked in the front yard. The applicant stated that he estimates that on an average there are 14 or more cars in the front yard.