LP-279 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 5 Parks 1. Impact on Parks: None 2. Impact on Community Facilities: None 3. Other Considerations: None Forestry 1. Tree Preservation: 2. Proposed Trees: One 16 foot green ash tree to remain in median of parking lot Three 6 foot evergreens and one I1h foot green ash will be added to the site at the northwest corner. None 3. Other Considerations: Fire 1. Access to Site: 2. Access to Structure: 3. Additional Hydrants: 4. Y Connection Location: 5. Other Considerations: Adequate Adequate None Adequate Fire Marshal will need sprinkler plan for the proposed addition Police 1. Traffic Safety: Adequate 2. On-Street Parking: None 3. Site Security: Adequate: lighting in parking lot would increase safety of site STAFF COMMENTS In 1979, the existing industrial building was proposed to be setback 40 feet from the 30 foot road easement to the north. However, the building as proposed encroached five feet into the NSP utility easement to the south. NSP required the building to be constructed outside the NSP utility easement. Consequently, the site plan was redrawn and the building was moved five feet further to the north. This adjustment resulted in the building being setback 35 feet from the road easement to the north. The development was approved without a setback variance being granted. Current surveys of the site indicate the existing building is setback 32 feet from the 30 foot road easement to the north. Since the existing building does not comply with the 40 foot street sideyard setback requirement and no variance was ever granted, a nonconforming use permit would need to be approved. Since the existing building was constructed, the applicant has planted several coniferous and deciduous trees along the north side of the building to reduce the impact of the building on the public traveling the road easement. These efforts have reduced the impact of the Type N nonconformity. The Planning Commission must determine if the Type IV nonconformity (32 tback) has been reduced the greatest practical extent. The proposed addition would require 8 foot varianc in order to align with the existing building and also be setback 32 feet from the road easeme to the nort . The unique circumstance in this case is the existing building was permitted to be constructed 32 ee rom the road easement in 1979. The applicant is now requesting the proposed addition be constructed at the same setback for practical and appearance purposes. Also, the road easement is constructed with a driveway which serves several industrial buildings in the area,