SP-064 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

$~ Board of ReviAw -3- Motion by Partyka, sf"conoE'o by ~nderson, to table the application ':'P-7l until site plans are proviCl'?c showing sitp utilization, landscaping, and parking arrangements, adring that itwouln appear the proposed use is compatible with other 1-1 uses. 1 ayes, 0 nayes.- carrie~ NC-lO ann LP-~? -- Ideal Grain an~ Seed Cleaner Company The City Planner reviewed his comments noting that Ideal Grain and Seed Cleaner Company had built an addition approximately one year agO at which time all of the existing Type IV non-conformities were eliminated except for the ina~equate front yarn setback, which would have required the building to be reconstructen. Because of this remaining non~conformity, it ~as noted that a non-conforming use permit was again necessary for this years propose~ addition. Tom Rutlec'lge, representing the applicant, was present. ~0 Mr. Rutledge indicated that the landscaoing approved under ,7} last years proposal was now under 'I:Jay. Mr . Rutledge also noted t~ ~d Avenue SE deaden~s just north of their property ~nd for this reason additional lan~scaping may bp unnecessary. that Wickland indicate0 that there may be a problem in the ordinance requirements in requiring that Ioeal Grain and Seed Cleaner Company ggain requesting this type of permit. Wickland noted that the company made many improvements last year and was proposing additional improvements this year. These improvements, Wickland staten, would appear to meet all ordinance requirements. The City Planner noted that the plans submitted had omitted the quantity and species of the landscaping for the small area proposed for this years addition. Mr. Rutledge completed the plan3 by writing in the missing information on the file copy. Motion ,by vJickland, seconde0. by p,nClerson, to recommend approva 1 of NC 10 and LP-32 based on the plans submitted, noting that the proposea addition conforms to all code requirements and that the proposed improvements would lessen the impact of the existing non- conformity, and further tqat the approval be supject to the following: 10 That the landscaping conform to the handwritten copy, provided by the applicants representative.